AIMS: A qualitative study to explore the knowledge, current dietary practices, and the barriers and enablers for dietary self-care management in persons with T2DM.
METHODS: In this qualitative study, in-depth interviews were conducted among 35 participants with T2DM who scored minimally and optimally in the Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ). Interviews were conducted using a validated interview guide. In-depth interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed to verbatim and thematically analysed.
RESULTS: The study included 20 males and 15 females. The three major themes derived in the study. Firstly, "Knowledge, Interpretation and Information" the majority of the participants have understood the influence of diet on control of blood glucose level includes food choices and quantum of food. Secondly, "Current Dietary Practices-Preferences, Availability of food and Convenience influence dietary practices': All participants had their own belief on the side effects and benefits of certain food items. Most of the participants followed a three-meal pattern: breakfast, lunch and dinner. Finally, Barriers and Enablers in dietary self-management practice. Knowledge, physical and emotional factors, behaviour, planning were the intrinsic factors. Elements of the research, social support, season and climate, food environment were the extrinsic factors and communication, and financial management was the intermediate influences observed.
CONCLUSION: The themes generated by this research provide insight into self-management and patient expectations in dietary matters. It would be desirable for physicians and health care providers to be aware of these practices when advising people with T2DM on dietary self - management.
METHODS: Using a randomised double-blind crossover design, 21 (men = 6, women = 15) T2D subjects consumed test meals (3.65 MJ) consisting of a high fat muffin (containing 50 g test fats provided as PO, IPO or HOS) and a milkshake. Postprandial changes in gut hormones, glucose homeostasis, satiety, lipid and inflammatory parameters after meals were analysed. Some of the solid fractions of the IPO were removed and thus the fatty acid composition of the PO and IPO was not entirely equal (PO vs IPO: palmitate 39.8 vs 38.7; oleate 43.6 vs 45.1). PO, IPO and HOS contained 9.7, 38.9 and 0.2 g/100 g total fatty acids of palmitic acid at the sn-2 position, respectively. At 37 °C, IPO contained 4.2% SFC whereas PO and HOS were completely melted.
RESULTS: Our novel observation shows that the incremental area under curve (iAUC) 0-6 h of plasma GIP concentration was on average 16% lower following IPO meal compared with PO and HOS (P
METHODS: A clinically validated insulin/glucose model was used to calculate SI with the standard fasting assumption (SFA) G0 = GTARGET. Then GTARGET was treated as a variable in a second analysis (VGT). The outcomes were contrasted across twelve participants with established type 2 diabetes mellitus that were recruited to take part in a 24-week dietary intervention. Participants underwent three insulin-modified intravenous glucose tolerance tests (IM-IVGTT) at 0, 12, and 24 weeks.
RESULTS: SIVGT had a median value of 3.36×10-4 L·mU-1·min-1 (IQR: 2.30 - 4.95×10-4) and were significantly lower ( P < .05) than the median SISFA (6.38×10-4 L·mU-1·min-1, IQR: 4.87 - 9.39×10-4). The VGT approach generally yielded lower SI values in line with expected participant physiology and more effectively tracked changes in participant state over the 24-week trial. Calculated GTARGET values were significantly lower than G0 values (median GTARGET = 5.48 vs G0 = 7.16 mmol·L-1 P < .001) and were notably higher in individuals with longer term diabetes.
CONCLUSIONS: Typical modeling approaches can overestimate SI when GTARGET does not equal G0. Hence, calculating GTARGET may enable more precise SI measurements in individuals with type 2 diabetes, and could imply a dysfunction in diabetic metabolism.
METHODS: The e-intervention group (n = 62) received a 6-month web-delivered intensive dietary intervention while the control group (n = 66) continued with their standard hospital care. Outcomes (DKAB and DSOC scores, FBG and HbA1c) were compared at baseline, post-intervention and follow-up.
RESULTS: While both study groups showed improvement in total DKAB score, the margin of improvement in mean DKAB score in e-intervention group was larger than the control group at post-intervention (11.1 ± 0.9 vs. 6.5 ± 9.4,p
METHODS: We randomized 108 overweight and obese patients with T2D (46 M/62F; age 60 ± 10 years; HbA1c 8.07 ± 1.05%; weight 101.4 ± 21.1 kg and BMI 35.2 ± 7.7 kg/m2) into three groups. Group A met with RDN to develop an individualized eating plan. Group B met with RDN and followed a structured meal plan. Group C did similar to group B and received weekly phone support by RDN.
RESULTS: After 16 weeks, all three groups had a significant reduction of their energy intake compared to baseline. HbA1c did not change from baseline in group A, but decreased significantly in groups B (- 0.66%, 95% CI -1.03 to - 0.30) and C (- 0.61%, 95% CI -1.0 to - 0.23) (p value for difference among groups over time
METHODS AND RESULTS: Effects of GBR, brown rice, and white rice (WR) on fasting plasma glucose and selected genes were studied in type 2 diabetic rats. GBR reduced plasma glucose and weight more than metformin, while WR worsened glycemia over 4 weeks of intervention. Through nutrigenomic suppression, GBR downregulated gluconeogenic genes (Fbp1 and Pck1) in a manner similar to, but more potently than, metformin, while WR upregulated the same genes. Bioactives (gamma-amino butyric acid, acylated steryl glycoside, oryzanol, and phenolics) were involved in GBR's downregulation of both genes. Plasma glucose, Fbp1 and Pck1 changes significantly affected the weight of rats (p = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: The fact that GBR downregulates gluconeogenic genes similar to metformin, but produces better glycemic control in type 2 diabetic rats, suggests other mechanisms are involved in GBR's antihyperglycemic properties. GBR as a staple could potentially provide enhanced glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus better than metformin.