The Antioxidant Capacity of Breast Milk and Plasma of Women with or without Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

Women with gestational diabetes (GD) have reduced antioxidant capacity; however, the relationship between maternal diet, maternal biochemical capacity, breast milk concentration, and infant intake has not been adequately explored in the literature. An exploration of underlying mechanism(s) is warranted, particularly for nutrient antioxidants impacted by maternal intake. These nutrients may provide a means for modifying maternal and infant antioxidant capacity. Oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC), alpha-tocopherol, ascorbic acid, and beta-carotene concentrations were measured in breast milk of women with and without GD. Plasma, three-day diet records, and breast milk were collected at 6 to 8 weeks postpartum. Student's t-test was used to compare breast milk ORAC, nutrient antioxidant concentration and plasma ORAC between women with and without GD. Pearson correlations were used to determine associations among antioxidant concentrations in breast milk and dietary antioxidant intake. Breast milk antioxidant concentrations were associated with maternal intake of beta-carotene (r = 0.629, p = 0.005). Breast milk and plasma ORAC and antioxidant vitamin concentrations were not significantly different between GD and NG women. Breast milk ORAC associated with breast milk alpha-tocopherol for NG (r = 0.763, p = 0.010), but not GD women (r = 0.385, p = 0.35), and with breast milk ascorbic acid for GD (r = 0.722, p = 0.043) but not NG women (r = 0.141, p = 0.70; interaction p = 0.041). In GD participants, breast milk ORAC was significantly associated with plasma ORAC (r = 0.780, p = 0.039). ORAC and antioxidant vitamin concentrations in breast milk in women with GD were comparable to women with NG; however, the relationships between breast milk ORAC and vitamin concentrations differed in GD versus NG women for alpha-tocopherol and ascorbic acid.

The Effect of Non-Nutritive Sweetened Beverages on Postprandial Glycemic and Endocrine Responses: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Background: There has been an emerging concern that non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) can increase the risk of cardiometabolic disease. Much of the attention has focused on acute metabolic and endocrine responses to NNS. To examine whether these mechanisms are operational under real-world scenarios, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of acute trials comparing the effects of non-nutritive sweetened beverages (NNS beverages) with water and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) in humans. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched through to January 15, 2022. We included acute, single-exposure, randomized, and non-randomized, clinical trials in humans, regardless of health status. Three patterns of intake were examined: (1) uncoupling interventions, where NNS beverages were consumed alone without added energy or nutrients; (2) coupling interventions, where NNS beverages were consumed together with added energy and nutrients as carbohydrates; and (3) delayed coupling interventions, where NNS beverages were consumed as a preload prior to added energy and nutrients as carbohydrates. The primary outcome was a 2 h incremental area under the curve (iAUC) for blood glucose concentration. Secondary outcomes included 2 h iAUC for insulin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), ghrelin, leptin, and glucagon concentrations. Network meta-analysis and confidence in the network meta-analysis (CINeMA) were conducted in R-studio and CINeMA, respectively. Results: Thirty-six trials involving 472 predominantly healthy participants were included. Trials examined a variety of single NNS (acesulfame potassium, aspartame, cyclamate, saccharin, stevia, and sucralose) and NNS blends (acesulfame potassium + aspartame, acesulfame potassium + sucralose, acesulfame potassium + aspartame + cyclamate, and acesulfame potassium + aspartame + sucralose), along with matched water/unsweetened controls and SSBs sweetened with various caloric sugars (glucose, sucrose, and fructose). In uncoupling interventions, NNS beverages (single or blends) had no effect on postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, GIP, PYY, ghrelin, and glucagon responses similar to water controls (generally, low to moderate confidence), whereas SSBs sweetened with caloric sugars (glucose and sucrose) increased postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, and GIP responses with no differences in postprandial ghrelin and glucagon responses (generally, low to moderate confidence). In coupling and delayed coupling interventions, NNS beverages had no postprandial glucose and endocrine effects similar to controls (generally, low to moderate confidence). Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that NNS beverages sweetened with single or blends of NNS have no acute metabolic and endocrine effects, similar to water. These findings provide support for NNS beverages as an alternative replacement strategy for SSBs in the acute postprandial setting.

A Web-Based Health Application to Translate Nutrition Therapy for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in Primary Care (PortfolioDiet.app): Quality Improvement and Usability Testing Study.

BACKGROUND: The Portfolio Diet, or Dietary Portfolio, is a therapeutic dietary pattern that combines cholesterol-lowering foods to manage dyslipidemia for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. To translate the Portfolio Diet for primary care, we developed the PortfolioDiet.app as a patient and physician educational and engagement tool for PCs and smartphones. The PortfolioDiet.app is currently being used as an add-on therapy to the standard of care (usual care) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care. To enhance the adoption of this tool, it is important to ensure that the PortfolioDiet.app meets the needs of its target end users. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this project is to undertake user testing to inform modifications to the PortfolioDiet.app as part of ongoing engagement in quality improvement (QI). METHODS: We undertook a 2-phase QI project from February 2021 to September 2021. We recruited users by convenience sampling. Users included patients, family physicians, and dietitians, as well as nutrition and medical students. For both phases, users were asked to use the PortfolioDiet.app daily for 7 days. In phase 1, a mixed-form questionnaire was administered to evaluate the users' perceived acceptability, knowledge acquisition, and engagement with the PortfolioDiet.app. The questionnaire collected both quantitative and qualitative data, including 2 open-ended questions. The responses were used to inform modifications to the PortfolioDiet.app. In phase 2, the System Usability Scale was used to assess the usability of the updated PortfolioDiet.app, with a score higher than 70 being considered acceptable. RESULTS: A total of 30 and 19 users were recruited for phase 1 and phase 2, respectively. In phase 1, the PortfolioDiet.app increased users' perceived knowledge of the Portfolio Diet and influenced their perceived food choices. Limitations identified by users included challenges navigating to resources and profile settings, limited information on plant sterols, inaccuracies in points, timed-logout frustration, request for step-by-step pop-up windows, and request for a mobile app version; when looking at positive feedback, the recipe section was the most commonly praised feature. Between the project phases, 6 modifications were made to the PortfolioDiet.app to incorporate and address user feedback. At phase 2, the average System Usability Scale score was 85.39 (SD 11.47), with 100 being the best possible. CONCLUSIONS: By undertaking user testing of the PortfolioDiet.app, its limitations and strengths were able to be identified, informing modifications to the application, which resulted in a clinical tool that better meets users' needs. The PortfolioDiet.app educates users on the Portfolio Diet and is considered acceptable by users. Although further refinements to the PortfolioDiet.app will continue to be made before its evaluation in a clinical trial, the result of this QI project is an improved clinical tool.

Effect of a low glycaemic index diet on blood glucose in women with gestational hyperglycaemia.

AIM: The objectives of this pilot study were to determine the feasibility and effect on glycaemic control of a low-glycaemic-index (GI) diet in women with gestational diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance of pregnancy. METHODS: participants, recruited from the Diabetes-in-Pregnancy Clinic of an inner-city teaching hospital serving a predominantly non-Caucasian population, were randomized to a low-GI (n=23) or control (n=24) diet and followed from 28 weeks gestation until delivery. Self-monitored-blood-glucose (SMBG), maternal and infant weight were collected from medical charts. Dietary intakes were assessed using diet records and questionnaires. RESULTS: diet GI on control (58, 95% CI: 56,60) was significantly higher than on low-GI (49, 95% CI: 47,51; p=0.001). Glycaemic control improved on both diets, but more postprandial glucose values were within target on low-GI (58.4% of n=1891) than control (48.7% of n=1834; p<0.001). SMBG post-breakfast was directly related to pre-pregnancy BMI in the control, but not the low-GI group (BMI*diet interaction; p=0.021). Participants accepted the study foods and were willing to consume them post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: a low-GI diet was feasible and acceptable in this sample and facilitated control of postprandial glucose. A larger study is needed to determine the effect of a low-GI diet on maternal and infant outcomes.

Perceived barriers to application of glycaemic index: valid concerns or lost in translation?

The term glycaemic-index (GI) originally appeared in the literature in the early 1980s. GI categorizes carbohydrate according to glycaemic effect postprandially. Since its inception, GI has obtained and maintained interest of academics and clinicians globally. Upon review of GI literature, it becomes clear that the clinical utility of GI is a source of controversy. Can and should GI be applied clinically? There are academics and clinicians on both sides of the argument. Certainly, this controversy has been a stimulus for the evolution of GI methodology and application research, but may also negatively impact clinicians' perception of GI if misunderstood. This article reviews two assessments of GI that are often listed as barriers to application; the GI concept is (1) too complex and (2) too difficult for clients to apply. The literature reviewed does not support the majority of purported barriers, but does indicate that there is a call from clinicians for more and improved GI education tools and clinician GI education. The literature indicates that the Registered Dietitian (RD) can play a key role in GI knowledge translation; from research to application. Research is warranted to assess GI education tool and knowledge needs of clinicians and the clients they serve.