Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
University of Groningen
Slowing starch digestibility in foodsde Bruijn, Hanny Margriet
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.
Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:2018
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):de Bruijn, H. M. (2018). Slowing starch digestibility in foods: Formulation, substantiation and metaboliceffects related to health. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Download date: 26-08-2021
CHAPTER 2
A systematic review of the influence of rice characteristics and processing methods on postprandial glycaemic and insulinaemic responses
Hanny M. Boers Jack Seijen ten Hoorn
David J. Mela
Adapted from Br J Nutr 2015; 114(7): 1035-1045
Chapter 2
30
ABSTRACT Rice is an important staple food for more than half of the world’s population. Especially in Asian countries rice is a major contributor to the dietary glycaemic load (GL). Sustained consumption of higher GL diets has been implicated in the development of chronic diseases such as diabetes mellitus type 2. Given that reduction in post-prandial glycaemic and insulinaemic responses is generally seen as a beneficial dietary change, it is useful to determine the variation in the range of postprandial glucose (PPG) and insulin (PPI) responses to rice and the primary intrinsic and processing factors known to affect such responses. We therefore identified relevant original research on glycaemic response to rice through a systematic search of literature in Scopus, Medline and Scifinder databases up to July 2014. Based on a reference value of glucose = 100, the observed glycaemic index (GI) values for rices ranged from 48 to 93, while the insulinaemic index (II) ranged from 39 to 95. There are three main factors that appear to explain most of variation in the glycaemic and insulinaemic responses to rice: 1) inherent starch characteristics (amylose-amylopectin ratio and rice cultivar), 2) post-harvest processing (particularly parboiling) and 3) consumer processing (cooking, storage and re-heating). Milling shows a clear effect when compared at identical cooking times, with brown rice always producing a lower PPG and PPI response than white rise. However, at the longer cooking times normally used for preparation of brown rice, smaller and inconsistent differences between brown and white rice are observed.
Rice review
31
INTRODUCTION Rice is a daily dietary staple food for more than half of the world’s population, and the major single food source of carbohydrate and energy in China and many other Asian countries (1). In the South of India for example, nearly half of daily energy intake may come from refined grains, and white polished rice constitutes > 75% of that (2). In China brown rice is rarely consumed (3). As a result, in Asian populations white rice makes large contributions to the dietary glycaemic load (GL), an index reflecting the acute blood glucose raising potential of foods or diets (4). Higher levels of postprandial glycaemic exposures have been implicated in the development of chronic metabolic diseases, particularly type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular diseases (5). A recent systematic review and meta-analysis has shown a clear relationship between white rice intakes and T2DM, with higher rice intake levels being more strongly associated with risk in Asian than in Western populations (6, 7).
There are many varieties of rice grain in the world, and these vary considerably in the postprandial blood glucose (PPG) response they produce (8). Results in GI studies around the world (9) reported values ranging from 64 to 93. Moreover, the post-harvest treatment of rice and the method of consumer preparation can also play a significant role in this. Starch is comprised of two glucose polymers, amylose and amylopectin. Amylose is a linear and relatively short polymer of glucose units linked by α(1→4) bonds. Amylopectin is a branched and longer polymer where glucose units are arranged linearly through α(1→4) with branches emerging via α(1→6) bonds occurring every 24-30 glucose units (10). It is already generally known that starches with a higher amount of amylose are more resistant to digestion (11).
In addition to the variation in the amylose content, cooking (and cooling) processes can influence the starch digestibility via the degree of gelatinization and retrogradation of rice starch. Gelatinization is the collapse (disruption) of molecular order (breaking of H-bonds) within the starch granule, manifested in irreversible changes in properties such as granular swelling, native crystallite melting, loss of birefringence and starch solubilisation during hydrothermal treatment (12). This leads to dissociation of the crystalline regions in starch with associated hydration and swelling of the starch granules, leading to higher starch availability to human digestive enzymes (13). Retrogradation is the recrystallization of the amorphous phases created by gelatinization (14) and in the case of amylose results in formation of type 3 resistant starch (RS3) (15). RS3 is resistant for digestion, because it is heat stable and melts above 120 0C (16). In contrast retrograded amylopectin is thought to melt upon reheating (cooking), due to the low melting point (46-65 0C) of these crystallites and is therefore digestible upon cooking.
Post-harvest processing include milling, parboiling and quick-cooking. The rice milling process starts with the husking stage to remove the husk from the paddy rice, followed
Chapter 2
32
by the whitening-polishing stage to transform brown rice into polished white rice, and finally the grading and blending stage to obtain head rice with pre-defined amounts of broken rice. However, while this may affect the overall nutritional value, effects on digestibility and PPG are less clear (17). Other post-harvest treatments such as parboiling can also play a role in digestibility. Parboiling is a hydrothermal treatment that includes soaking in water, heating, drying and milling of the paddy rice. During the parboiling process the crystalline structure of the starch present in rice is transformed into an amorphous form. Pressure parboiling is accomplished by soaking the paddy rice in warm water (65-680C) for 4-5h followed by steaming under pressure and drying (18). Other post-harvest processes are used to produce quick-cooking rice. This is rice where the starch has been partially gelatinized by soaking in water and heating (19). Additional processes for consumer consumption include cooking, storage and reheating. There are different ways of rice cooking depending on the ratios between rice and water, equipment (pressure cooking and steaming), and consumer preference (sticky rice, aromatic Basmati, etc.). Cooking of polished white rice strongly affects gelatinization. Retrogradation is affected by cooling and storage conditions (see also figure 3).
Given that reductions in PPG responses is generally seen as a beneficial dietary change (5) it is useful to objectively establish the variation in the range of PPG responses to rice and the primary intrinsic and processing factors known to affect such responses. We have therefore undertaken a systematic search of the literature characterizing the range of PPG and PPI responses to different rice types, and considered this alongside available data on rice grain and processing characteristics. The main emphasis is on in vivo studies in humans, supplemented in places by in vitro literature related to specific mechanisms that may be relevant (e.g. the influence of microstructure in rice).
METHODS The literature database ‘Scopus’ was searched for the following combinations of keywords (without language or time restrictions): rice* AND glycaem* or glycem* or digestib* or glucose* or insulin* or hyperglycaem* or hyperglycem* or hypoglycaem* or hypoglycem* or normoglycaem* or normoglycem* AND combined with title from 1980 through July 2014 resulting in 94 records. In addition Pubmed + Scifinder were also searched with the same search string and one extra article was found. Three further ‘missed’ articles were identified from the cited references in the articles identified in the formal searches resulting in 98 articles. From manual inspection of the 98 abstracts, we identified 28 original articles describing results of 32 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with rice as the test food and a measure of PPG (and in some cases also PPI) as an outcome measure (for detailed flow chart see figure 1).
Ri
ce re
view
33
Fig.
1. F
low
cha
rt of
the
syst
emat
ic re
view
arti
cle
sele
ctio
n pr
oces
s, R
CT,
rand
omis
ed c
ontro
lled
trial
33
Rice review
Chap
ter 2
34
Figu
re 2
: Ric
e pr
oces
sing
ste
ps
34
Chapter 2
Rice review
35
RESULTS Evidence base Studies identified in the search and the key relevant results from those are shown in tabular form in Table 1, and arranged for specific comparisons of amylose content, parboiling and milling respectively in Tables 2, 3 and 4 in the supplemental material. The 32 RCTs on PPG responses to rice include different rice types (e.g. regional varieties) and different processes (milling, (par)boiling, ‘quick cook’, (pressure) cooking). Outcome measures for blood glucose include Glycaemic Index (GI, 27 studies) and/or the incremental area under the PPG response curve (iAUC, 19 studies), or peak glucose values (8 studies). The iAUC is the actual blood glucose response to a given serving of rice, whereas GI and the corresponding insulinaemic index (II) use a fixed available carbohydrate load (usually 50 g) and represent responses as a comparison to a reference assigned a value of 100. Except where noted, the GI and II studies compared rice to glucose as the reference. A subset of studies report II (7 studies) or insulin AUC (8 studies). Two studies also took breath hydrogen into account as an indicator of carbohydrate malabsorption (20,21).
Characterization of rice and processing In most studies the rice was well characterized with respect to % amylose (9 studies), dietary fibre (4 studies), resistant starch (RS) (2 studies) and available starch (16 studies). In some studies gelatinization or amylograph measures of the milled rice flour were taken into account (22, 23, 24, 25, 26), while in others in vitro glucose release assays were included (24, 27, 21). A few studies reported grain sizes, rheology, or retrogradation determined by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC; a thermo-analytical technique to identify phase transition) (28). The processes explored in the studies involved post-harvest treatment such as parboiling and milling. Variation observed in GI and II and causes for this variation The observed GI values ranged from 48 to 93, while the II (0-120 min) ranged from 39 to 95 (Table 1).
Amongst the studies which specifically tested or varied the amylose content and its quantitative relationship with glycaemic and insulinaemic responses (9, 18, 20, 22, 23, 29-33) most show that the latter measures are significantly inversely related to the amylose content (9, 18, 20, 29-32) (see also Table 2 in supplemental material). However, some studies tested for but did not find this inverse relationship for all glycaemic parameters (22, 23, 33). Large differences in amylose content (2% versus ~30% amylose) were often associated with relatively large glycaemic and insulinaemic effects (≈300% decrease in PPG; ≈55% decrease in PPI) (9, 18, 29). However, there were also studies where this effect was inconsistent (30) or not seen (23 exp2, 33).
Chapter 2
36
Post-harvest treatments such as parboiling (21,29,34) and quick-cook rice (18,21) generally gave a lower GI compared to white rice not undergoing these post-harvest treatments (see also Table 3 in supplemental material). Larsen et al. (28) reported that an increased severity of parboiling conditions leads to significant decreases in PPG due to the formation of RS. In that study mild traditional parboiling had no effect on the GI, whereas severely pressure parboiling reduced the GI by almost 30% compared to non-parboiled rice. However, one study did not show an effect of parboiling (32), and the reported GI of a thermally treated Indian Basmati rice variety (thermal treatment not specified) gave a GI of 55(35), which is in the range of 52-59 that Henry et al. (36)
reported for non-thermally treated Basmati rice. The influence of another post-harvest treatment, milling, by which brown rice is transformed into white rice, has been considered in several studies (9, 18, 26, 30, 37) (Table 4 in supplemental material). In those studies where cooking times were identical (26,30,37), brown rice always produces lower PPG and PPI responses. However, when realistic (longer) cooking times for brown rice are applied (9,18), the difference between brown and white is smaller and inconsistent.
Consumer processing can also make a large contribution to the RS formation in rice. Chiu and Stewart (38) quantified the RS content in 4 white rice varieties (jasmine, long grain, medium grain and short grain) cooked in three manners (oven baked, conventional rice cooker, and pressure cooker), and analyzed RS content immediately after preparation or after 3 days of refrigeration at 40C. Refrigerated long-grain rice cooked in a conventional rice cooker had the highest RS content, while the refrigerated short-grain rice cooked in a pressure cooker had the lowest RS content. However, in this case the GI values did not differ significantly between higher RS and lower RS rices. Consumer processing can also have a large effect on gelatinization. Wolever et al (39) showed that GI generally increased with cooking time of rice, while Jung et al. (40) showed a marked increase in gelatinization upon cooking rice and a somewhat higher GI and II.
DISCUSSION The literature reveals considerable variation in the the glycaemic or insulin response to rice. This is largely attributable to 1) starch characteristics, 2) post-harvest processing (particularly parboiling and to a much lesser extent de-hulling and milling) and 3) consumer processing (cooking, storage and re-heating). The relationships amongst rice characteristics and processing factors, and their physico-chemical effects and impact on glycaemic response are qualitatively illustrated in Figure 3.
Rice review
37
Figure 3: Relationship between rice characteristics, processing factors, physico-chemical processes and glycaemic response (+ is increased effect, - is decreased effect). This is a general figure, depending on specific processes e.g. conditions of parboiling, the effects may differ.
Influence of the composition and processing of the rice The most consistently important source of variation in PPG responses to rice is amylose content. The amylose content of rice varies between 0% (waxy rice) and 30% (Doongara) (9), with Basmati having an intermediate value (20-25% amylose; (41)). One of the reasons for the lower PPG responses to high amylose varieties is incomplete gelatinization of amylose under normal cooking conditions, while amylopectin is fully gelatinized under these conditions (42). Gelatinization temperature is known to be positively correlated with amylose content (43), implying that rice with a higher amylose content requires a higher gelatinization temperature due to the restrained swelling by amylose, resulting in a longer required cooking time (44). The formation of complexes between amylose and lipids upon heating further contributes to reduced access to the starch by gut enzymes (33). These complexes with lipids are only found in association with amylose, therefore the rice with highest amylose content would have more lipid-amylose complexes (33). In addition, a higher amylose content leads (after cooking and cooling) to a greater degree of retrogradation (18). In a recent study the major gene associated with variation in GI was the waxy gene (44), which codes for different structures of amylose within the grain and different retrogradation rates (45).
In vitro literature shows that the rice cultivar, clustered as Indica, Japonica and Hybrid rice type, is also of importance for the rate and degree of starch digestion: low-amylose Indica shows a faster and higher degree of digestion compared to low-amylose Japonica, while a high-amylose Japonica is faster and more completely digested
Chapter 2
38
(shown by a higher content of rapidly digestible starch and a lower content of slowly digestible and RS) than a high-amylose Indica (11). In addition, Benmoussa et al. (46)
showed that rice amylopectin fine structure affects starch digestion properties in vitro: cultivars with the highest amount of slowly digestible starch contained mainly long-chain amylopectin.
Post-harvest treatments such as parboiling (21, 29, 34) and quick-cook rice (18, 21) also have a large influence on GI (Table 3 in supplemental material). Gelatinization and re-crystallization are the major changes in rice starch that occur during parboiling (47). Parboiling process increases the gelatinization temperature of rice which is proportional with the severity of the heat treatment (48). This is probably the reason why pressure parboiling lowers the GI to such a large extent, especially of high-amylose starches (49). The pressure parboiling process increases the gelatinization temperature due to the formation of retrograded amylose and amylopectin. The wet heating and subsequent drying during these processing resulted in the gelatinization of the starch, followed by retrogradation of amylose and amylopectin (18) resulting in higher levels of RS. It is possible that the amylopectin crystallites (part of the RS) retain some of the associating forces during the reheating, and are partly responsible for the low glucose response observed for pressure parboiling. The amylose-lipid complexes have a melting temperature above 100 0C and are not melted during the cooking process resulting in higher RS levels (28).
Another way of getting a high RS content is having multiple heating/cooling cycles (50). Thrice heated /cooled legumes, cereals and tubers increased the RS content from 4.18%, 1.86% and 1.51% to 8.16%, 3.25% and 2.51% respectively on dry matter basis. A ten times greater RS content in rice had however no effect on GI (38). It is possible that the tested range of difference in RS in that study was not sufficient to observe a change in GI (38) and this is confirmed by the fact that only large differences in amylose content (leading to high RS after cooking and cooling) lead to relatively large effects in GI (9).
Another final process shown to have a major influence on the PPG response is the gelatinization process during cooking, which needs moisture and a high temperature (above gelatinization temperature) for a particular period of time. Using different rice types with the same high amylose content, Panlasigui (25) reported that PPG responses differed between rice types when a fixed cooking time was used, but these differences disappeared when the minimum cooking time for each particular rice type was used. This likely is attributed to the other physico-chemical properties of the rice types. Physico-chemical parameters which predict lower blood glucose response are high gelatinization temperature, high minimum cooking time, lower viscosity measured by amylograph consistency (amylograph is an instrument for measuring gelatinization temperature and viscosity of flour and starch pastes), and low volume expansion upon
Rice review
39
cooking, all parameters related to lower gelatinization (25). Steaming also gave a larger PPG response than boiling and simmering (51), which may reflect greater gelatinization by steaming.
A factor which has relatively less impact on PPG is physical size and form of the whole kernel rice, probably due to the fact that the size is minimized by chewing (52). The particle size only plays a major role when the rice has been milled to rice flour due to the higher surface area-starch ratio which leads to an increased rate of digestion (53). In addition, the effect of brown rice versus white rice on glycaemic and insulinaemic response shows a clear effect (26, 30, 37) when compared at identical cooking times: brown rice always gives a lower PPG and PPI (Table 4 in supplemental material). However, in reality consumers cook brown rice longer than white rice resulting a mixed outcome: in some cases white rice was found to have a higher glycaemic response (9,
for Pelde), a neutral effect (9, for Dongaara and Calrose) or an even lower response than for brown rice (18). In most of these studies (9, 18, 30) commercially white rice was taken at random and not milled from the same batch of brown rice. Therefore the variety and physicochemical properties of the rice samples may have differed (53). Only two studies (26, 37) used white and brown rice from the same batch. However, a recent longer-term study showed that the iAUC over 5 days consumption was 19.8% lower for a group eating brown vs white rice, as measured with a continuous glucose monitoring device (54). However, it is not clear if the brown and white rices were of the same rice variety. Therefore results cannot clearly be attributed to the milling alone. It is possible that the dietary fibre-rich bran fraction in brown rice can continue to serve as a barrier to digestive enzymes (53), but several other modes of action are possible. The magnitude of effect of milling and polishing could also be somewhat dependent on the rice strain and cooking conditions (18). White rice has a shorter minimum cooking time and higher volume expansion than brown rice, indicating that white rice is more easily hydrated and gelatinized compared with brown rice and therefore more readily digested resulting in a higher PPG response (53) when cooked under the same conditions.
In addition to the rice source and processing, there is interindividual variation observed in PPG (iAUC and peak blood glucose) to carbohydrate-rich foods. This has been reported to account for at least 20% of the total variation in PPG (55). One of the factors which could be responsible for the interindividual variation in PPG to rice could be ethnicity. The PPG (+iAUC) was over 60% greater for five rice varieties and 39% greater for glucose amongst Chinese compared with Europeans (29) (Table 1). The most likely explanation for the ethnic differences is that the Chinese are more likely to become insulin resistant compared to Europeans of the same or higher relative body weight and waist circumference (56). Truong et al. (57) also observed that Asian-Americans on average exhibited higher levels of blood glucose than Caucasians after a control food with 50g carbohydrates. The conclusion is that if one compares results across studies one should take into account the ethnicity of the subjects: i.e. Asian
Chapter 2
40
people typically give a higher PPG response than Caucasians, which may also increase the apparent magnitude of differences between rice types and characteristics. A final factor contributing toward interindividual variation in PPG is the degree of habitual mastication (52). The latter may be a considerable contributor especially to foods consisting of intact grains (such as rice) which rely on mechanical breakdown for carbohydrate release. Indeed, a recent study (58) showed that rice chewed 15 times produced a PPG, peak PPG and GI significantly lower than when chewed 30 times. Conclusions While rice as a total category may be a major global contributor to the dietary GL, there is wide variation in the glycaemic and insulinaemic responses to rice as eaten. This can be largely attributed to the inherent starch characteristics of the specific cultivars, but within a given rice type the mode of post-harvesting processing and ‘at-home’ preparation can also have a large influence. A reduced glycaemic impact is mediated mainly by the relative content of amylose (vs amylopectin), reduction of gelatinization, or the facilitation of retrogradation. Perhaps surprisingly, milling and polishing (thus white vs brown rice) has been found to have inconsistent impacts on acute glycaemic responses when compared under realistic cooking times, which are longer for brown rice. The glycaemic response to rice can be further influenced by individual characteristics of the consumer, such as chewing habit and ethnicity. In order to interpret and compare reported PPG responses between different rice studies, the rice cultivar, amylose/amylopectin ratio, post-harvest processing parameters and the cooking conditions should be considered. In addition, a lower PPG response of rice can be achieved by choosing the right conditions: e.g. high amylose content, minimized cooking times (or pressure parboiled) and cooled before consumption. The opposite effect (a higher PPG response) can be achieved by selecting for low amylose (waxy) white rice, with a long cooking time and consumed directly after cooking. Sources of financial support: No additional external financial support Conflict of interest HMB, DJM, JSH are employees of Unilever. Unilever manufactures and markets consumer food products, including products used for the preparation of rice-based dishes. Authorship HMB carried out the systematic review, and HMB and DJM extracted data from papers. HMB wrote the article with significant contributions from DJM and JSH.
Rice review
41
REFERENCES 1. Kennedy G, Burlingame B, Nguyen VN (2003) Nutritional contribution of rice and impact of
biotechnology and biodiversity in rice-consuming countries. Proceedings of the 20th Session of the International Rice Commission, Bangkok, Thailand, FAO.
2. Kumar S, Mohanraj E, Sudha V, et al. (2011) Perceptions about varieties of brown rice: a qualitative study from Southern India. J Am Diet Assoc 111, 1517-1522.
3. Zhang G, Malik VS, Pan A, et al. (2010) Substituting brown rice for white rice to lower diabetes risk: a focus-group study in Chinese adults. J Am Diet Assoc 110, 1216-1221.
4. Mohan V, Radhika G, Vijayalakshmi P, et al. (2010) Editorial: can the diabetes/cardiovascular disease epidemic in India be explained, at least in part, by excess grain (rice) intake? Ind J Med Res 131, 369-372.
5. Blaak EE, Antoine JM, Benton D, et al. (2012) Impact of postprandial glycaemia on health and prevention of disease. Obes Rev 13 , 923-84.
6. Hu EA, Pan A, Malik V, et al. (2012) White rice consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: meta-analyssi and systematic review. Br Med J 344, e1454.
7. Neal B (2012) White rice and risk of type 2 diabetes. Br Med J 344, e2021. 8. Foster-Powell K, Holt SHA, Brand-Miller JC (2002) International table of glycemic index and
glycemic load values: 2002. Am J Clin Nutr 76, 5-56. 9. Brand Miller J, Pang E, Bramall L (1992) Rice: a high or low glycemic index food? Am J Clin Nutr
56, 1034-1036. 10. Sajilata MG, Singhal RS, Kulkarni PR (2006) Resistant starch – a review. Comprehensive Reviews
in Food Science and Food Safety 5, 1-17. 11. Hu P, Zhao H, Duan Z, et al. (2004) Starch digestibillity and the estimated glycemic score of
different types of rice differing in amylose content. J Cer Sci 40, 231-237. 12. Atwell WA, Hood LF, Lineback DR, et al. (1988)The terminology and methodology associated with
basic starch phenomena. Cereal Foods World 33, 306–311. 13. Tester RF and Sommerville MD (2003) The effects of non-starch polysaccharides on the extent
of gelatinization, swelling and alpha-amylase hydrolysis of maize and wheat starches. Food hydrocolloids 17, 41-54.
14. Faraj A, Vasanthan T, Hoover R (2004) The effect of extrusion cooking on resistant starch formation in waxy and regular barley flours. Food Res Int 37, 517-525.
15. Mitra A, Bhattacharya D, Roy S (2007) Role of resistant starches particularly rice containing resistant starches in type 2 diabetes. J Hum Ecol 21, 47-51.
16. Sievert D, Pomeranz Y (1989) Enzyme-resistant starch. I. Characterization and evaluation by enzymatic, thermoanalytical and microscopic methods. Cereal Chemistry 66, 342-347.
17. Dipti SS, Bergman C, Indrasari SD et al. (2012) The potential of rice to offer solutions for malnutrition and chronic diseases. Rice 5, 1-18.
18. Ranawana DV, Henry CJK, Lightowler HJ et al. (2009) Glycaemic index of some commercially available rice and rice products in Great Britain. Int J Food Sci Nutr 60(S4), 99-110.
19. Owens G (ed.) (2001) Cereals processing technology. Cambridge, Woodhead Publishing Limited, UK
20. Li M, Piao J-H, Tian Y, et al. (2010) Posprandial glycaemic and insulinaemic responses to GM-resistant starch-enriched rice and the production of fermentation-related H2 in healthy Chinese adults. Br J Nutr 103, 1029-1034.
21. Casiraghi MC, Brighenti F, Pellegrini N, et al. (1993) Effect of processing on rice starch digestibility evaluated by in vivo and in vitro methods. J Cereal Sci 17, 147-156.
22. Al-Mssallem MQ, Hampton SM, Frost GS, et al. (2011) A study of Hassawi rice (Oryza sativa L.) in terms of its carbohydrate hydrolysis (in vitro) and glycaemic and insulinaemic indices (in vivo). Eur J Clin Nutr; 65, 627-634.
Chapter 2
42
23. Juliano BO, Goddard MS (1986) Cause of varietal difference in insulin and glucose responses to ingested rice. Qual Plant Plant Foods Hum Nutr 36, 35-41.
24. Juliano BO, Perez CM, Komindr S, et al. (1989) Properties of Thai cooked rice and noodles differing in glycemic index in non-insulin-dependent diabetics. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 39, 369-374.
25. Panlasigui L, Thompson LU, Juliano BO et al. (1991) Rice varieties with similar amylose content differ in starch digestibility and glycemic response in humans. Am J Clin Nutr 54, 871-877.
26. Panlasigui LN, Thompson LU. (2006) Blood glucose lowering effects of brown rice in normal and diabetic subjects. Int J Food Sci Nutr 57, 151-158.
27. Kim JC, Kim J-I, Kong B-W, et al. (2004) Influence of the physical form of processed rice products on the enzymatic hydrolysis of rice starch in vitro and on the postprandial glucose and insulin responses in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 68, 1831-1836.
28. Larsen HN, Rasmussen OW, Rasmussen PH, et al. (2000) Glycaemic index of parboiled rice depends on the severity of processing: study in type 2 diabetic subjects. Eur J Clin Nutr 54: 380-385.
29. Kataoka M, Venn BJ, Williams SM, et al. (2013) Glycaemic responses to glucose and rice in people of Chinese and European ethnicity. Diabet Med 30, 101-107.
30. Trinidad TP, Mallillin AC, Encabo RR, et al. (2013) The effect of apparent amylose content and dietary fibre on the glycemic response of different varieties of cooked milled and brown rice. Int J Food Sci Nutr 64, 89-93.
31. Zarrati M, Pirali M, Mirmiran P, et al. (2008) Glycemic index of various brands of rice in healthy individuals. Int J Endocrinol Metab 4, 200-204.
32. Larsen HN, Christensen C, Rasmussen OW, et al. (1996) Influence of parboiling and physico-chemical characteristics of rice on the glycaemic index in non-insulin-dependent diabetic subjects. Eur J Clin Nutr 50, 22-27
33. Goddard MS, Young G, Marcus R. (1984) The effect of amylose content on insulin and glucose responses to ingested rice. Am J Clin Nutr 39, 388-392.
34. Hettiarachchi P, Jiffry MTM, Jansz ER, et al. (2001) Glycaemic indices of different varieties of rice grown in Sri Lanka. Ceylon Med J 46, 11-14.
35. Srinivasa D, Raman A, Meena P, et al. (2013) Glycaemic index (GI) of an Indian branded thermally treated Basmati rice variety: a multi centric study. J Assoc Phys India 61, 716-720.
36. Henry CJK, Lightowler HJ, Strik CM, et al. (2005) Glycaemic index and glycaemic load values of commercially available products in the UK. Br J Nutr 94, 922-930.
37. Karupaiah T, Aik CK, Heen TC, et al. (2011) A transgressive brown rice mediates favourable glycaemic and insulin responses. J Sci Food Agric 91, 1951-1956.
38. Chiu Y-T, Stewart ML (2013) Effect of variety and cooking method on resistant starch content of white rice and subsequent postprandial glucose response and appetite in humans. Asia Pac J Nutr 22, 372-379.
39. Wolever TMS, Jenkins DJA, Kalmusky J, et al. (1986) Comparison of regular and parboiled rices: explanation of discrepancies between reported glycemic responses to rice. Nutr Res 6, 349-357.
40. Jung EY, Suh HJ, Hong WS, et al. (2009) Uncooked rice of relatively low gelatinization degree resulted in lower metabolic glucose and insulin responses compared with cooked rice in female college students. Nutr Res 29, 457-461.
41. Bhattacharjee P, Singhal RS, Kulkarni PR (2002) Int J Food Sci Techn 37, 12. 42. Björck I, Granfeldt Y, Liljeberg H, et al. (1994) Food properties affecting the digestion and
absorption of carbohydrates. Am J Clin Nutr 59(Suppl 3), 699S-705S. 43. Fredriksson H, Silverio J, Andersson R, et al. (1998) The influence of amylose and amylopectin
characteristics on gelatinization and retrogradation poperties of different starches. Carbohydr Polym 35, 119-134.
Rice review
43
44. Fitzgerald MA. Rahman S, Resurreccion AP, et al. (2011) Identification of a major genetic determinant of glycaemic index in rice. Rice 4, 66-74.
45. Tran NAV, Daygon DA, Resurreccion R, et al. (2011) A single nucleotide polymorphism on the Waxy gene explains gel consistency. Theor Appl Genet 123, 519-525.
46. Benmoussa M, Moldenhauer KAK, Hamaker BR (2007) Rice amylopectin fine structure variability affects starch digestion properties. J Agric Food Chem 55, 1475-1479.
47. Oli P, Ward R, Adhikari B, et al. (2014) Parboiled rice: understanding from a materials science approach. J Food Eng 124, 173-183.
48. Islam MR, Shimizu N, Kimura T (2002) Effect of processing conditions on thermal properties of parboiled rice. Food Sci Technol Resh 8, 131-136.
49. Zavareze EdR, Storck CR, de Castro LAS, et al. (2010) Effect of heat-moisture treatment on rice starch of varying amylose content. Food Chem 121, 358-365.
50. Yadav BS, Sharma A, Yadav RB. (2009) Studies on effect of multiple heating/cooling cycles on the resistant starch formation in cereals, legumes and tubers. Int J Food Sci Nutr 60(S4), 258-272.
51. Parastouei K, Shahaboddin ME, Motalebi M, et al. (2011) Glycemic index of Iranian rice. Sci Res Essays 6, 5302-5307.
52. Ranawana V, Henry JK, Pratt M (2010) Degree of habitual mastication seems to contribute to interindividual variations in the glycemic response to rice but not to spaghetti. Nutr Res 30, 382-391.
53. Chang UJ, Hong YH, Jung EY, et al. (2014) Rice and the glycemic index: Benefits, risks and mechanisms of whole grains in health promotion. In: Watson RR, Preedy V, Zibadi S. (eds). Wheat and rice in disease prevention and health. Elsevier Inc. P 357-363
54. Mohan V, Spiegelman D, Sudha V, et al. (2014) Effect of brown rice, white rice, and brown rice with legumes on blood glucose and insulin responses in overweight Asian Indians: randomized trial. Diabetes Techn Ther 16, 317-325.
55. Vega-Lopez S, Ausman LM, Griffith JL, et al. (2007) Interindividual variability and intra-individual reproducibility of glycemic index values for commercial white bread. Diabetes Care 30, 1412-1417.
56. Dickinson S, Colagiuri S, Faramus E, et al. (2002) Postprandial hyperglycemia and insulin sensitivity differ among lean young adults of different ethnicities. J Nutr 132, 2574-2579.
57. Truong TH, Yuet WC, Hall MD (2014) Glycemic index of American-grown jasmine rice classified as high. Int J Food Sci Nutr 65, 436-439.
58. Ranawana V, Leow MK-S, Henry CJK. (2014) Mastication effects of the glycaemic index: impact on variability and practical implications. Eur J Clin Nutr 68, 137-139.
59. Gatti E, Testolin G, Noè D, et al. (1987) Plasma glucose and insulin responses to carbohydrate food (rice) with different thermal processing. Ann Nutr Metab 31, 296-303.
60. Matsuo T, Mizushima Y, Komuro M, et al. (1999) Estimation of glycemic and insulinemic responses to short-grain rice (Japonica) and a short-grain rice-mixed meal in healthy young subjects. Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr 8, 190-194.
61. Shobana S, Kokila A, Lakshmipriya N, et al. (2012) Glycaemic index of three Indian rice varieties. Int J Food Sci Nutr 63, 178-183
Chap
ter 2
44
Tabl
e 1:
Hum
an in
viv
o st
udie
s on
the
post
-pra
ndia
l gly
caem
ic a
nd in
sulin
aem
ic e
ffect
s of
rice
. For
GI a
nd II
val
ues,
50g
of a
vaila
ble
carb
ohyd
rate
s w
ere
used
and
refe
renc
e va
lue
= 10
0, w
ith g
luco
se a
s th
e re
fere
nce
exce
pt w
here
not
ed.
Publ
icat
ion
+ Ex
p.
Part
icpa
nts
(N, M
/F, B
MI,
age)
Food
Am
ylos
e w
/w%
G
lyca
emic
resp
onse
In
sulin
re
spon
se
AUC
G
I Pe
ak
Bran
d-M
iller
et a
l. (1
992)
(9)
N=8
hea
lthy
volu
ntee
rs, 1
9-36
y, B
MI 1
8-25
kg
/m2
Ric
es g
row
n in
Aus
tralia
, m
in =
min
utes
boi
led
Doo
ngar
a (w
hite
), 14
min
D
oong
ara
(br.)
, 30
min
Pe
lde
brow
n, 3
0 m
in
Sunb
row
n qu
ick,
16
min
C
alro
se (w
hite
), 14
min
C
alro
se (b
row
n), 3
5 m
in
Peld
e (p
arbo
iled)
, 14
min
W
axy
rice,
14
min
Pe
lde
whi
te, 1
4 m
in
28
28
20
NR
20
20
20
<2
20
G
I vs
brea
d
64
66
76
80
83
87
87
88
93
II
vs b
read
40
39
55
54
67
51
57
89
67
Ran
awan
a et
al
. (20
09)(1
8)
N=1
4 he
alth
y su
bjec
ts, a
ge
18-6
5 y,
BM
I <
30 k
g/m
2
Whi
te ri
ce=
W.
Brow
n ric
e= B
.
min
= m
inut
es b
oile
d
1. G
uilin
rice
noo
dles
, 8 m
in
2. J
iang
xi ri
ce n
oodl
es, 8
min
3.
Eas
y-co
ok lo
ng g
rain
rice
, 15
min
. 4.
Lon
g-gr
ain
rice
(Indi
ca ty
pe),
15 m
in
5. W
. bas
mat
i ric
e, 1
0 m
in
6. W
hite
(60%
) and
bro
wn
(40%
) ba
smat
i ric
e 25
min
7.
Bas
mat
i + w
ild ri
ce, 2
0 m
in
8. B
. bas
mat
i ric
e, 2
5 m
in
9. T
hai r
ed ri
ce, 2
5 m
in
10. E
asy
cook
bas
mat
i ric
e, 1
5 m
in
11. T
hai g
lutin
ous
rice,
10
min
20
-25
20
-25
20-2
5
20-2
5 <2
76
74
76 91 94
92 96
116
111
111
144
37
40
47 47 50
59 63
75
76
80 92
44
Chapter 2
Ri
ce re
view
45
Publ
icat
ion
+ Ex
p.
Part
icpa
nts
(N, M
/F, B
MI,
age)
Food
Am
ylos
e w
/w%
G
lyca
emic
resp
onse
In
sulin
re
spon
se
AUC
G
I Pe
ak
Li e
t al
(201
0)(2
0)
N=1
6 he
alth
y su
bjec
ts, 9
M/7
F,
age
23-2
6, B
MI
18-2
4
RS:
Res
ista
nt-s
tarc
h en
riche
d (R
S 20
%) [
Hig
h am
ylos
e]
WT:
Wild
-type
(RS
2%)
Indi
ca ty
pe (O
ryza
sat
iva
L.cv
. Te-
Qin
g), R
S pr
oduc
ed w
ith
antis
ense
inhi
bitio
n st
arch
-br
anch
ing
enzy
me
GI (
4 ho
ur)
48
77
6.
8 7.
2
II 34
54
Cas
iragh
i et
al. (
1993
)(21)
N=9
hea
lthy
subj
ects
m
ean
age
26,
BMI 2
2
Italia
n Fi
no ri
be ri
ce, p
roce
ssed
as
: Pa
rboi
led
(15
min
boi
l tim
e)
Qui
ck-c
ooki
ng p
arbo
iled
(8 m
in)
Con
vent
iona
l pol
ishe
d (2
0 m
in)
GI v
s br
ead
70
79
115
Al-M
ssal
lem
et
al.
(201
1)
(22)
N=1
3 he
alth
y su
bjec
ts, 6
M/
7F,
BMI 2
5.6±
1.
0 kg
/m2 ,
25-4
2 y
Long
-gra
in ri
ce v
arie
ty ‘U
ncle
Be
n’s’
rice
(UBR
) and
trad
ition
al
Saud
i Ara
bian
rice
: Has
saw
i ric
e (H
R).
U
BR
HR
19
26
54
59
78
56
Julia
no a
nd
God
dard
(1
986)
exp
1.
(23)
N=1
6 R
ice
cook
ed: s
ame
degr
ee o
f do
nene
ss
Labe
lle
New
rex
28
24
(tAU
C 0
-180
m
in)
19.0
* 19
.3*
AUC
(µ
U/m
l) 86
64
Julia
no a
nd
God
dard
(1
986)
exp
2.
(23)
N=3
3 R
ice
cook
ed: s
ame
degr
ee o
f do
nene
ss
Moc
hi G
ome
Labe
lle
Peco
s
1 24
18
(tAU
C 0
-180
m
in)
19.2
* 19
.3*
19.7
*
AU
C (µ
U/m
l)
113
95
110
45
Rice review
Chap
ter 2
46
Publ
icat
ion
+ Ex
p.
Part
icpa
nts
(N, M
/F, B
MI,
age)
Food
Am
ylos
e w
/w%
G
lyca
emic
resp
onse
In
sulin
re
spon
se
AUC
G
I Pe
ak
Julia
no e
t al
(198
9) (2
4)
N=8
type
2 D
M
subj
ects
Lo
ng g
rain
non
-wax
y (R
D21
and
R
D23
) and
wax
y ric
e N
on w
axy
rice
Wax
y ric
e
16
2
71
75
Panl
asig
ui e
t al
(19
91):
exp
1(2
5)
N=
11 h
ealth
y su
bjec
ts
(4M
,7F)
, 23-
44
y, 1
00 ±
10%
id
eal b
ody
wei
ght
Long
-gra
in ,
nonw
axy
rice:
IR
62; I
R36
and
IR42
, whi
te ri
ce:
boile
d fo
r 22
min
IR
42
IR62
IR
36
26
.7
27.0
26
.7
mm
ol.m
in/l
55
65
81
61
72
91
AU
C pm
ol.m
in/l
92
40
7131
94
15
Panl
asig
ue e
t al
(19
91):
exp
2(2
5)
N=
11 h
ealth
y su
bjec
ts
(3M
,8F)
, 23-
50
y, 1
00 ±
10%
id
eal b
ody
wei
ght
Long
-gra
in ,
nonw
axy
rice:
IR
62; I
R36
and
IR42
, whi
te ri
ce;
50g
ex
p 2:
boi
led
for m
inim
um
cook
ing
IR
42, b
oile
d fo
r 14
min
. IR
62, b
oile
d fo
r 20
min
. IR
36, b
oile
d fo
r 19
min
.
26
.7
27.0
26
.7
mm
ol.m
in/l
11
0.4
110.
8 11
8.0
81
75
78
Panl
asig
ui
and
Thom
pson
(2
006)
Ex
p 1(2
6)
N=1
0 he
alth
y su
bjec
ts (3
M,
7F),2
4-50
y, 1
00
±10%
idea
l bod
y w
eigh
t
IR42
rice
, bro
wn
rice
IR42
rice
, whi
te ri
ce
26
.7
26.7
mm
ol.m
in/l
10
7 13
4
GI v
s br
ead
83
94
Panl
asig
ui
and
Thom
pson
(2
006)
Ex
p 2(2
6)
N=9
T2D
M
(5M
,4F)
, 45-
64y
IR42
rice
, bro
wn
rice
IR42
rice
, whi
te ri
ce
26
.7
26.7
mm
ol.m
in/l
406
626
GI v
s br
ead
56
87
46
Chapter 2
Ri
ce re
view
47
Publ
icat
ion
+ Ex
p.
Part
icpa
nts
(N, M
/F, B
MI,
age)
Food
Am
ylos
e w
/w%
G
lyca
emic
resp
onse
In
sulin
re
spon
se
AUC
G
I Pe
ak
Kim
et a
l. (2
004)
(27)
N=1
0 T2
D
patie
nts;
4M
/6F;
m
ean
age
57,
BMI 2
4
Kor
ean
rices
: G
arae
duk:
16
mm
stic
k of
st
eam
ed e
xtru
ded
rice
flour
C
ooke
d ric
e: G
elat
iniz
ed g
rain
s,
boile
d po
lishe
d ric
e
Bag
sulg
i – R
ice
cake
: Lar
ge
bloc
k of
ste
amed
rice
flou
r
m
mol
/l/4
hr
730
914
1070
mg
/dl/4
hr
1742
2571
3266
Lars
en e
t al.
(200
0)(2
8)
N=9
type
2 D
M,
26.6
kg/m
2 , 60
ys
Indi
ca ri
ce v
arie
ty B
R16
, hig
h am
ylos
e, lo
ng g
rain
Pr
essu
re p
arbo
iled
rice
Tr
adio
nal m
ild p
arbo
iled
rice
Non
-par
boile
d ric
e W
hite
bre
ad
27
27
27
iAU
C m
mol
/l/3
hr
231
274
335
626
GI v
s br
ead
39
46
55
100
10
.5
11.0
10
.9
14.0
iAU
C p
mol
/l/3
hr
7590
77
19
7595
16
52
Kata
oka
et a
l. (2
012)
(29)
N=3
2 he
alth
y C
hine
se; 3
3y,
BMI:
22.9
kg/
m2
and
31 h
ealth
y Eu
rope
an
subj
ects
: 34y
, BM
I: BM
I: 25
.8
kg/m
2
Ric
e ty
pes:
Jas
min
e ric
e,
basm
ati,
brow
n ric
e, D
oong
ara
and
parb
oile
d ric
e (U
ncle
Ben
’s)
Doo
ngar
a Pa
rboi
led
Basm
ati
Brow
n Ja
smin
e
30
(9)
20
-25(9
)
Low
(32)
iAU
C E
ur/C
hin
mm
ol.m
in/l
10
9 / 1
79
112
/ 194
11
6 / 1
84
129
/ 210
14
0 / 2
25
GI E
ur/C
hin
55
/ 67
57
/ 72
57
/ 67
65
/ 78
68
/ 80
Trin
idad
et a
l (2
013)
(30)
N=9
-10
heal
thy
volu
ntee
rs, 2
7-55
y
Coo
ked
mille
d an
d br
own
rice
Mill
ed ri
ce
PS
B rc
10
IR64
PS
B R
c18
IMS2
PS
B R
c12
NSI
C R
C16
0 Si
nand
omen
g
27
.0
22.9
18
.0
0.6
21.0
15
.3
12.6
mm
ol.m
in/l
188
212
221
233
236
259
280
50
57
59
63
63
70
75
47
Rice review
Chap
ter 2
48
Publ
icat
ion
+ Ex
p.
Part
icpa
nts
(N, M
/F, B
MI,
age)
Food
Am
ylos
e w
/w%
G
lyca
emic
resp
onse
In
sulin
re
spon
se
AUC
G
I Pe
ak
Bro
wn
rice
IR64
Si
nand
omen
g
22
.0
12.1
18
9 20
4
51
55
Zarra
ti et
al
. (2
008)
(31)
N
=30
heal
thy
subj
ects
(1
3M/1
7F),
age
35y
,BM
I: 23
kg
/m2
One
Iran
ian
rice
type
: Kaz
emi
and
impo
rted
rice
s.
Sorn
a pe
arl
Bas
mat
i K
azem
i
32
31
27
52
61
68
max
imum
ch
ange
s 1.
2 1.
7 1.
5
II 47
52
62
Lars
en e
t al
(199
6)(3
2)
N=1
2 T2
D
patie
nts,
7M
/5F
mea
n ag
e 58
, BM
I 30
Deh
ulle
d, m
illed
rice
s:
BR
2 =
Low
am
ylos
e va
riety
B
R4
low
Gel
atin
izat
ion
tem
p an
d ge
l con
sist
ency
vs
BG
16
PB =
Par
boile
d N
P =
Not
Par
boile
d B
R4-
PB
BR
16-P
B
BR
16-N
P B
R2-
PB
W. B
read
27
28
28
12
iAU
C m
mol
/l/3
hr
361
391
411
566
756
GI v
s br
ead
47
50
53
73
100
mm
ol/l
14
.5
14.7
14
.8
15.9
17
.3
iAU
C p
mol
/l/3
hr
1296
4 12
821
1108
7 16
215
2018
3
God
dard
et a
l. (1
984)
(33)
N
=33
16M
/17F
, 27
-81y
,wei
ght:
with
in 2
0%
desi
rabl
e w
Long
-gra
in ri
ce: L
abel
le
Med
ium
gra
in ri
ce: P
ecos
Sw
eet r
ice:
Moc
hi G
ome
23-2
5 14
-17
<2
19.4
* 20
.0*
19.4
*
6.
3 6.
6 6.
8
100
μU/m
l 10
5 11
0
Het
tiara
chch
i et
al.
(200
1)
(34)
N=2
2 he
alth
y su
bjec
ts, 2
5-50
y Sh
rilan
kian
rice
var
ietie
s (re
d vs
w
hite
and
par
boile
d vs
raw
rice
) R
ice
bree
ding
inst
itute
: Bg
= B
atha
laga
oda
Bw =
Bom
buw
ala
Bg 3
50, r
aw, r
ed
Bw 3
51, p
arbo
il, re
d
G
I vs
bre
ad
55
± 6
56
± 5
48
Chapter 2
Ri
ce re
view
49
Publ
icat
ion
+ Ex
p.
Part
icpa
nts
(N, M
/F, B
MI,
age)
Food
Am
ylos
e w
/w%
G
lyca
emic
resp
onse
In
sulin
re
spon
se
AUC
G
I Pe
ak
Bw 2
726-
B, p
arbo
il, re
d Bg
94-
1, p
arbo
il, w
hite
BW
302
, raw
, whi
te
Bg 3
00, p
arbo
il, w
hite
Bw
400
, raw
, red
Bg
450
, raw
, whi
te
Bg 9
4-1,
raw
, whi
te
Bw 2
726-
B, ra
w, r
ed
Bw 3
51, r
aw, r
ed
58 ±
5
62 ±
6
64 ±
6
66 ±
5
66 ±
5
67 ±
5
68 ±
6
68 ±
7
73 ±
4
Sr
iniv
asa
et
al. (
2013
)(35)
N
=83
heal
thy
volu
ntee
rs,
(64M
, 19F
),18-
37y,
wei
ght 4
4-74
kg
An In
dian
ther
mal
ly tr
eate
d ba
smat
i ric
e
mm
ol.m
in/l
182
55
Mg/
dl
7.6
Hen
ry e
t al.
(200
5)(3
6)
N=8
, mea
n ag
e=37
; BM
I 23
kg/m
2
Basm
ati r
ice,
Indi
an, b
oile
d 8
min
. Ba
smat
i ric
e, In
dian
, eas
y-co
ok,
boile
d 9
min
. Ba
smat
i ric
e, b
oile
d 12
min
. Ba
smat
i ric
e, o
rgan
ic, b
oile
d 9
min
.
69
67 52
57
Karu
paia
h et
al
. (20
11)(3
7)
N=9
hea
lthy
subj
ects
, 6M
/4F,
ag
e gr
oup<
30y,
BM
I: 23
kg/
m2
Tran
sgre
ssiv
e br
own
rice
(BR
) ,
cros
s be
twee
n w
ild ri
ce
O.ru
fipog
on G
riff.
and
O. s
ativ
a L.
su
bsp.
Indi
ca c
v. M
R21
9, p
olis
hed
vers
ion
(PR
) and
whi
te ri
ce (C
ap
Ram
buta
n) (W
R)
BR
PR
WR
13
15
18
mm
ol.m
in/l
84
130
141
51
79
86
II 39
63
68
49
Rice review
Chap
ter 2
50
Publ
icat
ion
+ Ex
p.
Part
icpa
nts
(N, M
/F, B
MI,
age)
Food
Am
ylos
e w
/w%
G
lyca
emic
resp
onse
In
sulin
re
spon
se
AUC
G
I Pe
ak
Chi
u an
d St
ewar
t (2
013)
(38)
N=2
1 he
alth
y su
bjec
ts,1
2M/9
F, 1
8-65
y, B
MI
18.5
-30.
1 kg
/m2
Ref
riger
ated
long
gra
in ri
ce
prep
ared
with
rice
coo
ker (
2.55
g R
S/10
0g a
s-ea
ten)
HR
S,
Ref
riger
ated
sho
rt-gr
ain
rice
prep
ared
with
pre
ssur
e co
oker
(0
.20g
RS/
100g
) LR
S H
igh
resi
stan
t sta
rch
rice
Low
resi
stan
t sta
rch
rice
211
181
84
78
Wol
ever
et a
l. (1
986)
, exp
1.
(39)
N=1
8 di
abet
ics,
13
NID
DM
(6
F/7M
; 67
ys;
124%
idea
l w
eigh
t) an
d +
5 ID
DM
(4F/
1M;
54 y
s, 1
04%
id
eal w
eigh
t)
Whi
te b
read
W
hite
bre
ad +
tom
ato
15 m
in re
gula
r ric
e 15
min
par
boile
d ric
e
23
23
NID
DM
/IDD
M
mm
ol.m
in/l
95
1/12
20
1003
/120
8 81
6/10
19
614/
710
NID
DM
/IDD
M
GI v
s br
ead
10
0/10
0 10
7/95
86
/77
68/6
4
NID
DM
/IDD
M
mm
ol/l
7.
7/9.
7 8.
2/9.
6 6.
4/7.
8 4.
7/5.
9
Wol
ever
et a
l. (1
986)
, exp
2.
(39)
N=1
8 di
abet
ics,
13
NID
DM
(6
F/7M
; 67
ys;
124%
idea
l w
eigh
t) a
nd +
5
IDD
M (4
F/1M
; 54
ys,
104
%
idea
l wei
ght)
Whi
te b
read
+ to
mat
o
5min
regu
lar r
ice
15
min
regu
lar r
ice
In
stan
t ric
e 5m
in p
arbo
iled
rice
15m
in p
arbo
iled
rice
25
min
par
boile
d ric
e
GI v
s br
ead
103
58
83
65
54
67
66
Jung
et a
l. (2
009)
(40)
N=1
2 he
alth
y fe
mal
es m
ean
age
22, B
MI 2
1
Kor
ean
(Pun
gtak
regi
on) r
ice,
pr
oces
sed
as:
UP
= U
ncoo
ked
rice
pow
der
UFP
= F
reez
e-dr
ied
UP
CR
= C
ooke
d ric
e (b
oile
d 15
m
in)
50
59
72
74
68
95
II 74
68
95
50
Chapter 2
Ri
ce re
view
51
Publ
icat
ion
+ Ex
p.
Part
icpa
nts
(N, M
/F, B
MI,
age)
Food
Am
ylos
e w
/w%
G
lyca
emic
resp
onse
In
sulin
re
spon
se
AUC
G
I Pe
ak
Para
stou
ei e
t al
. (20
11)(5
1)
N=1
0 he
alth
y yo
ung
adul
ts
(mea
n ag
e 20
, BM
I 20)
‘Iran
ian’
whi
te ri
ce (n
o fu
rther
de
tails
on
type
): Fl
uffy
(Soa
ked
35’
Boi
led
10’
d
rain
ed a
nd s
imm
ered
20-
30’)
Stea
med
(Boi
led
5-8’
sim
mer
ed 3
0’)
55 66
Truo
ng e
t al,
2014
(57)
N
=12
heal
thy
volu
ntee
rs
(pF/
3M; 1
8-65
ys
;23
kg/m
2 )
Four
bra
nds
of J
asm
ine
rice
Del
la (U
nite
d St
ates
) Ja
zzm
en (U
nite
d St
ates
) R
eind
eer (
Thai
land
) M
ahat
ma
(Tha
iland
)
Lo
w
Low
Lo
w
low
96
10
6 11
5 11
6
Gat
ti et
al.
(198
7)(5
9)
N=1
4 he
alth
y su
bjec
ts, 9
M/5
F,
21-3
2y, w
eigh
t: 88
-115
kg
Ric
e w
as c
ooke
d in
two
diffe
rent
m
anne
rs:
Boile
d in
sal
ted
wat
er
Bake
d fo
r 10
min
at 1
60 C
afte
r bo
iling
60
min
61
43
AUC
(U/m
l)
2,53
6 2,
676
Mat
suo
et a
l (1
999)
exp
1
(60)
N=
8 he
alth
y ad
ults
, 3M
/5F,
m
ean
age
25,
BMI 2
0
Shor
t-gra
in K
oshi
hika
ri ric
e
3 hr
GI a
nd II
vs
gluc
ose
refe
renc
e
48
II=65
Shob
ana
et a
l. (2
012)
(61)
N=2
3 he
alth
y vo
lunt
eers
, 18-
45y,
BM
I < 2
3.0
kg/m
2
Indi
an ri
ce v
arie
ties
(Son
a M
asur
i, Po
nni a
nd S
urti
Kol
am)
Ponn
i So
na M
asur
i Su
rti K
olam
m
mol
. m
in/l
175
172
185
70
72
77
*The
AU
C w
as n
ot c
alcu
late
d by
the
trape
zoid
al m
etho
d, b
ut b
y th
e fo
rmul
a: ti
me
1 +
time
2 +
¾ ti
me3
+ ti
me
4+ ti
me
5
4
2
51
Rice review
Chap
ter 2
52
SUPP
LEM
ENTA
RY
MAT
ERIA
L Ta
ble
2: G
lyca
emic
and
insu
lin re
spon
se d
ata
clas
sifie
d by
inhe
rent
cha
ract
eris
tics
(e.g
. am
ylos
e co
nten
t + g
rain
type
+ v
arie
ty/n
ame)
, pos
t-har
vest
and
co
nsum
er p
roce
ssin
g.
Inhe
rent
cha
ract
eris
tics
Proc
ess
Post
-har
vest
Pr
oces
s co
nsum
er
Gly
caem
ic re
spon
se
Insu
lin
Publ
icat
ion
Amyl
ose
Gra
in ty
pe
Varie
ty
C
ooke
r Bo
iling
time
[m]
AUC
G
I Pe
ak
[mm
ol/l]
Wax
y (<
2%)
Moc
he G
ome
19
1
6.8
110
God
dard
-198
4(33)
M
oche
Gom
e
Deg
ree
of d
onen
ess
192
1132
Julia
no-1
986-
2(23)
R
D23
75
Ju
liano
-198
9(24)
Th
ai g
lutin
ous
whi
te
10
14
4 92
R
anaw
ana-
2009
(18)
0.
6
IMS2
m
illed
cook
ed
23
33 63
Tr
inid
ad-2
013(3
0)
Low
(12
– 20
%)
12
BR
2 pa
rboi
led
5664
100
15.9
16
2154
Lars
en-1
996(3
2)
12.1
Sina
ndom
eng
brow
n co
oked
2043
55
Trin
idad
-201
3(30)
12
.6
Si
nand
omen
g m
illed
cook
ed
28
03 75
Tr
inid
ad-2
013(3
0)
13
M
R21
9 br
own
84
51
39
Ka
rupa
iah-
2011
(37)
15
MR
219
polis
hed
130
79
63
Ka
rupa
iah-
2011
(37)
15
.3
N
SIC
RC
160
mille
d co
oked
2593
70
Trin
idad
-201
3(30)
16
Lo
ng
RD
21
71
Julia
no-1
989(2
4)
14-1
7 m
ediu
m
Peco
s
201
6.
6 10
51 G
odda
rd-1
984(3
3)
18
Pe
cos
D
egre
e of
don
enes
s 20
2
11
02 Ju
liano
-198
6-2(2
3)
18
C
ap R
ambu
tan
whi
te
141
86
68
Ka
rupa
iah-
2011
(37)
18
PSB
Rc1
8 m
illed
cook
ed
22
13 59
Tr
inid
ad-2
013(3
0)
19
long
U
ncle
Ben
’s
parb
oile
d R
ice:
wat
er =
1:2
17
54
78
Al
-Mss
alle
m-2
011(2
2)
NR
Unc
le B
en’s
pa
rboi
led
Ric
e co
oker
194
72
Kata
oka-
2012
-Chi
nese
(29)
N
R
U
ncle
Ben
’s
parb
oile
d R
ice
cook
er
11
2 57
Ka
taok
a-20
12-E
urop
ean(2
9)
1 AU
C ex
pres
sed
as m
mol
/l, a
nd in
sulin
resp
onse
exp
ress
ed a
s µU
/ml
2 AU
C ex
pres
sed
as m
mol
/l; tA
UC
0-18
0 m
in.,
and
insu
lin re
spon
se e
xpre
ssed
as µ
U/m
l 3 A
UC
expr
esse
d as
mm
ol/l,
and
insu
lin re
spon
se e
xpre
ssed
as p
mol
/l.
4 AU
C ex
pres
sed
as iA
UC
mm
ol/l/
3hr,
and
insu
lin re
spon
se e
xpre
ssed
as p
mol
/l/3h
r
52
Chapter 2
Ri
ce re
view
53
Inhe
rent
cha
ract
eris
tics
Proc
ess
Post
-har
vest
Pr
oces
s co
nsum
er
Gly
caem
ic re
spon
se
Insu
lin
Publ
icat
ion
Amyl
ose
Gra
in ty
pe
Varie
ty
C
ooke
r Bo
iling
time
[m]
AUC
G
I Pe
ak
[mm
ol/l]
NR
Ar
omat
ic
Thai
Jas
min
e W
hite
R
ice
cook
er
22
5 80
Ka
taok
a-20
12-C
hine
se(2
9)
NR
Ar
omat
ic
Thai
Jas
min
e W
hite
R
ice
cook
er
14
0 68
Ka
taok
a-20
12-E
urop
ean(2
9)
20
Pe
lde
brow
n
30
76
55
Bran
d-M
iller-1
992(9
) 20
Peld
e pa
rboi
led
14
87
57
Br
and-
Mille
r-199
2(9)
20
Pe
lde
whi
te
14
93
67
Br
and-
Mille
r-199
2(9)
20
C
alro
se
Brow
n
35
87
51
Bran
d-M
iller-1
992(9
) 20
Cal
rose
w
hite
14
83
67
Bran
d-M
iller-1
992(9
) lo
w
Jasm
ine
Del
la
whi
te
cook
ed
96
Truo
ng-2
014(5
7)
low
Ja
smin
e Ja
zzm
en
whi
te
cook
ed
106
Truo
ng-2
014(5
7)
low
Ja
smin
e R
eind
eer
whi
te
cook
ed
115
Truo
ng-2
014(5
7)
low
Ja
smin
e M
ahat
ma
whi
te
cook
ed
116
Truo
ng-2
014(5
7)
Inte
rmed
iate
(20
– 25
%)
21.0
PSB
Rc1
2 m
illed
cook
ed
23
63 63
Tr
inid
ad-2
013(3
0)
22.0
IR64
br
own
cook
ed
18
93 51
Tr
inid
ad-2
013(3
0)
22.9
IR64
m
illed
cook
ed
21
23 57
Tr
inid
ad-2
013(3
0)
23
“re
gula
r” w
hite
bo
iling
15
8165
86
6.4
W
olev
er-1
986-
1-N
IDD
M(3
9)
23
“re
gula
r” w
hite
bo
iling
15
1019
5 77
7.
8
Wol
ever
-198
6-1-
IDD
M(3
9)
23
“re
gula
r” pa
rboi
led
boilin
g 15
61
45 68
4.
7
Wol
ever
-198
6-1-
NID
DM
(39)
23
“regu
lar”
parb
oile
d bo
iling
15
7105
64
5.9
W
olev
er-1
986-
1-ID
DM
(39)
23
“regu
lar”
whi
te
boilin
g 5
58
W
olev
er-1
986-
2(39)
23
“regu
lar”
whi
te
boilin
g 15
83
Wol
ever
-198
6-2(3
9)
23
“re
gula
r” pa
rboi
led
boilin
g 5
54
W
olev
er-1
986-
2(39)
23
“regu
lar”
parb
oile
d bo
iling
15
67
W
olev
er-1
986-
2(39)
23
“regu
lar”
parb
oile
d bo
iling
25
66
W
olev
er-1
986-
2(39)
23
-25
long
La
belle
191
6.
3 10
01 G
odda
rd-1
984(3
3)
24
long
La
belle
192
862
Julia
no-1
986-
1(23)
24
lo
ng
Labe
lle
19
2
95
2 Ju
liano
-198
6-2(2
3)
In
dian
Ba
smat
i W
hite
bo
iling
8
69
Hen
ry-2
005(3
6)
5 AU
C ex
pres
sed
as m
mol
/l
53
Rice review
Chap
ter 2
54
Inhe
rent
cha
ract
eris
tics
Proc
ess
Post
-har
vest
Pr
oces
s co
nsum
er
Gly
caem
ic re
spon
se
Insu
lin
Publ
icat
ion
Amyl
ose
Gra
in ty
pe
Varie
ty
C
ooke
r Bo
iling
time
[m]
AUC
G
I Pe
ak
[mm
ol/l]
In
dian
Ba
smat
i W
hite
Bo
iling
12
52
H
enry
-200
5(36)
Ba
smat
i Ea
sy-c
ook
boilin
g 9
67
H
enry
-200
5(36)
Org
anic
Ba
smat
i W
hite
(?)
boilin
g 9
57
H
enry
-200
5(36)
Ba
smat
i W
hite
R
ice
cook
er
18
4 67
Ka
taok
a-20
12-C
hine
se(2
9)
Basm
ati
Whi
te
Ric
e co
oker
116
57
Kata
oka-
2012
-Eur
opea
n(29)
Ba
smat
i Th
erm
al-tr
eate
d
18
26 55
7.
66
Srin
ivas
a-20
13(3
5)
Ponn
i W
hite
R
ice:
wat
er =
1:3
.5
35
175
70
Shob
ana-
2012
(61)
med
ium
So
na M
asur
i W
hite
R
ice:
wat
er =
1:3
.5
35
172
72
Shob
ana-
2012
(61)
Su
rti K
olam
W
hite
R
ice:
wat
er =
1:3
.5
35
185
77
Shob
ana-
2012
(61)
H
igh
(25
– 33
%)
26
H
assa
wi
Brow
n R
ice:
wat
er=1
:2
45
59
56
Al-M
ssal
lem
-201
1(22)
26
.7
Long
IR
36
Whi
te
boilin
g 22
81
3 91
9415
3 Pa
nlas
igui
-199
1-1(2
5)
26.7
Lo
ng
IR36
W
hite
bo
iling
19
78
Pa
nlas
igui
-199
1-2(2
5)
26.7
Lo
ng
IR42
W
hite
bo
iling
22
553
61
92
403
Panl
asig
ui-1
991-
1(25)
26
.7
Long
IR
42
Whi
te
boilin
g 14
91
Panl
asig
ui-1
991-
2(25)
26
.7
Long
IR
42
Brow
n
10
73 83
Pa
nlas
igui
-200
6-he
alth
y(26)
26
.7
Long
IR
42
Whi
te
1343
94
Panl
asig
ui-2
006-
heal
thy(2
6)
26.7
Lo
ng
IR42
Br
own
406
56
Panl
asig
ui-2
006-
T2D
M(2
6)
26.7
Lo
ng
IR42
w
hite
62
6 91
Pa
nlas
igui
-200
6-T2
DM
(26)
27
.0
long
IR
62
whi
te
boilin
g 22
65
3 72
7131
3 Pa
nlas
igui
-199
1-1(2
5)
27.0
lo
ng
IR62
w
hite
bo
iling
20
75
Pa
nlas
igui
-199
1-2(2
5)
27.0
PSB
rc10
m
illed
cook
ed
18
83 50
Tr
inid
ad-2
013(3
0)
27
BR
4 pa
rboi
led
3614
47
14.5
12
9644
Lars
en-1
996(3
2)
28
BR
16
Parb
oile
d
39
14 50
14
.7
1282
14 La
rsen
-199
6(32)
28
BR16
po
lishe
d
41
14 53
14
.8
1108
74 La
rsen
-199
6(32)
27
In
dica
-long
BR
16
Pres
sure
pa
rboi
led
2314
39
10.5
75
904
Lars
en-2
000(2
8)
27
Indi
ca-lo
ng
BR16
M
ild p
arbo
iled
2744
46
11.0
77
194
Lars
en-2
000(2
8)
27
Indi
ca-lo
ng
BR16
Po
lishe
d
3354
55
10.9
75
954
Lars
en-2
000(2
8)
6 AU
C ex
pres
sed
as m
mol
.min
/l., a
nd P
eak
expr
esse
d as
mm
ol/l
54
Chapter 2
Ri
ce re
view
55
Inhe
rent
cha
ract
eris
tics
Proc
ess
Post
-har
vest
Pr
oces
s co
nsum
er
Gly
caem
ic re
spon
se
Insu
lin
Publ
icat
ion
Amyl
ose
Gra
in ty
pe
Varie
ty
C
ooke
r Bo
iling
time
[m]
AUC
G
I Pe
ak
[mm
ol/l]
28
N
ewre
x
Deg
ree
of d
onen
ess
192
642
Julia
no-1
986-
1(23)
28
Doo
ngar
a Br
own
boilin
g 30
66
39
Br
and-
Mille
r-199
2(9)
28
D
oong
ara
whi
te
boilin
g 14
64
40
Br
and-
Mille
r-199
2(9)
28
D
oong
ara
whi
te
179
67
Kata
oka-
2012
-Chi
nese
(29)
28
Doo
ngar
a w
hite
10
9 55
Ka
taok
a-20
12-E
urop
ean(2
9)
27
Ka
zem
i
68
27
mg/
dl
62
Zarra
ti-20
08(3
1)
31
Ba
smat
i
61
32
mg/
dl
52
Zarra
ti-20
08(3
1)
32
So
rna
pear
l
52
22
mg/
dl
47
Zarra
ti-20
08(3
1)
55
Rice review
Chap
ter 2
56
Tabl
e 3:
Gly
caem
ic a
nd in
sulin
resp
onse
cla
ssifi
ed b
y (p
ress
ure)
par
boile
d ve
rsus
non
-par
boile
d ric
e an
d qu
ick
cook
rice
(Sev
erel
y) p
arbo
iled
vers
us n
on
parb
oile
d ric
e M
in =
min
utes
boi
led
Varie
ty
Gly
caem
ic re
spon
se
Insu
lin
Publ
icat
ion
AUC
G
I *v
s br
ead
Peak
Parb
oile
d, 1
4 m
in
Peld
e (w
hite
)
87*
57
Br
and-
Mille
r-199
2(9)
Non
-par
boile
d, 1
4 m
in
Peld
e (w
hite
)
93*
67
Br
and-
Mille
r-199
2(9)
Parb
oile
d, 1
5 m
in
Italia
n Fi
no ri
be
70
*
C
asira
ghi-1
993(2
1)
Qui
ck-c
ooki
ng p
arbo
iled,
8 m
in
Italia
n Fi
no ri
be
79
*
C
asira
ghi-1
993(2
1)
Non
-par
boile
d, 2
0 m
in
Italia
n Fi
no ri
be
11
5*
Cas
iragh
i-199
3(21)
Pa
rboi
led
BW 3
51, r
ed
56
*
H
ettia
rach
chi-2
001(3
4)
Non
-par
boile
d BW
351
, raw
, red
73*
Het
tiara
chch
i-200
1(34)
Pa
rboi
led
BW 2
726-
B, re
d
58*
Het
tiara
chch
i-200
1(34)
N
on-p
arbo
iled
BW 2
726-
B, ra
w, r
ed
68
*
H
ettia
rach
chi-2
001(3
4)
Parb
oile
d Bg
94-
1, w
hite
62*
Het
tiara
chch
i-200
1(34)
N
on-p
arbo
iled
Bg-9
4-1,
raw
, whi
te
68
*
H
ettia
rach
chi-2
001(3
4)
Parb
oile
d Pa
rboi
led
(Unc
le
Ben’
s, M
aste
rfood
s)
112
57
Kata
oka-
2012
-Eur
opea
n(29)
Parb
oile
d Pa
rboi
led
(Unc
le
Ben’
s, M
aste
rfood
s)
194
72
Kata
oka-
2012
-Chi
nese
(29)
Parb
oile
d In
dica
rice
BR
16
391
50*
14.7
12
821
Lars
en-1
996(3
2)
Non
-par
boile
d In
dica
rice
BR
16
411
53*
14.8
11
087
Lars
en-1
996(3
2)
Pres
sure
par
boile
d In
dica
rice
BR
16
231
39*
10.5
75
90
Lars
en-2
000(2
8)
Trad
ition
al m
ild p
arbo
iled
Indi
ca ri
ce B
R16
27
4 46
* 11
.0
7719
La
rsen
-200
0(28)
N
on-p
arbo
iled
Indi
ca ri
ce B
R16
33
5 55
* 10
.9
7595
La
rsen
-200
0(28)
Ea
sy-c
ook
Basm
ati r
ice,
15
min
11
1 80
R
anaw
ana-
2009
(18)
w
hite
rice
(non
-eas
y co
ok)
Basm
ati r
ice,
10
min
94
50
R
anaw
ana-
2009
(18)
Ea
sy-c
ook
Long
gra
in, I
ndic
a, 1
5 m
in
76
47
Ran
awan
a-20
09(1
8)
Non
-eas
y co
ok
Long
gra
in, I
ndic
a, 1
5 m
in
91
47
Ran
awan
a-20
09(1
8)
Parb
oile
d R
egul
ar lo
ng-g
rain
61
4 68
* 4.
7
Wol
ever
-198
6-N
IDD
M-1
(39)
N
on-p
arbo
iled
Reg
ular
long
-gra
in
816
86*
6.4
W
olev
er-1
986-
NID
DM
-1(3
9)
Parb
oile
d R
egul
ar lo
ng-g
rain
71
0 64
* 5.
9
Wol
ever
-198
6-ID
DM
-1(3
9)
Non
-par
boile
d R
egul
ar lo
ng-g
rain
10
19
77*
7.8
W
olev
er-1
986-
IDD
M-1
(39)
56
Chapter 2
Ri
ce re
view
57
(Sev
erel
y) p
arbo
iled
vers
us n
on
parb
oile
d ric
e M
in =
min
utes
boi
led
Varie
ty
Gly
caem
ic re
spon
se
Insu
lin
Publ
icat
ion
AUC
G
I *v
s br
ead
Peak
Non
-par
boile
d
Reg
ular
, 5 m
in
58
*
W
olev
er-1
986-
NID
DM
-2(3
9)
Parb
oile
d R
egul
ar, 5
min
54*
Wol
ever
-198
6-N
IDD
M-2
(39)
N
on-p
arbo
iled
Reg
ular
, 15
min
.
83*
Wol
ever
-198
6-N
IDD
M-2
(39)
Pa
rboi
led
Reg
ular
, 15
min
67*
Wol
ever
-198
6-N
IDD
M-2
(39)
Pa
rboi
led
Reg
ular
, 25
min
66*
Wol
ever
-198
6-N
IDD
M-2
(39)
57
Rice review
Chap
ter 2
58
Tabl
e 4:
Gly
caem
ic a
nd in
sulin
resp
onse
cla
ssifi
ed b
y st
ate
of m
illing
Mill
ing
stat
e (b
row
n ve
rsus
whi
te)
min
= m
in b
oile
d
Varie
ty
Gly
caem
ic re
spon
se
Insu
lin
** II
vs
brea
d Pu
blic
atio
n AU
C
GI
*vs
brea
d Pe
ak
Whi
te, 1
4 m
in.
Doo
ngar
a
64*
40
**
Bran
d-M
iller-1
992(9
) Br
own,
30
min
D
oong
ara
66
*
39**
Br
and-
Mille
r-199
2(9)
Whi
te, 1
4 m
in
Peld
e
93*
93
**
Bran
d-M
iller-1
992(9
) Br
own,
30
min
Pe
lde
76
*
76**
Br
and-
Mille
r-199
2(9)
Whi
te, 1
4 m
in
Cal
rose
83*
67
**
Bran
d-M
iller-1
992(9
) Br
own,
35
min
C
alro
se
87
*
51**
Br
and-
Mille
r-199
2(9)
Whi
te
Tran
sgre
ssiv
e 13
0 79
63
Karu
paia
h-20
11(3
7)
Brow
n
Tran
sgre
ssiv
e 84
51
39
Karu
paia
h-20
11(3
7)
Whi
te
IR42
13
4 94
*
Pa
nlas
igui
and
Tho
mps
on-2
006-
1-he
alth
y(26)
Br
own
IR42
10
7 83
*
Pa
nlas
igui
and
Tho
mps
on-2
006-
1 he
alth
y(26)
W
hite
IR
42
626
87
Panl
asig
ui a
nd T
hom
pson
-200
6-2-
T2D
M(2
6)
Brow
n IR
42
406
56
Panl
asig
ui a
nd T
hom
pson
-200
6-2-
T2D
M(2
6)
Whi
te
Basm
ati r
ice,
10
min
94
50
R
anaw
ana-
2009
(18)
Br
own
Basm
ati r
ice,
25
min
11
6 75
R
anaw
ana-
2009
(18)
W
hite
IR
64
212
57
Trin
idad
-201
3(30)
Br
own
IR64
18
9 51
Tr
inid
ad-2
013(3
0)
Whi
te
Sina
ndom
eng
280
75
Trin
idad
-201
3(30)
Br
own
Sina
ndom
eng
204
55
Trin
idad
-201
3(30)
58
Chapter 2
