Content uploaded by Muhammad Akhtar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Muhammad Akhtar on Feb 03, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 | J App Pharm 02(03): 191-196 (2011) Akhtar et al., 2011
Journal of Applied Pharmacy (ISSN 19204159); 34-115 V North Saskatoon SK Canada
S7L3E4 Tel.: +13062619809, www.japharmacy.com
Original Research
NUTRITIONAL VALUE AND GLYCAEMIC INDEX OF KFC AND LOCAL BURGERS
IN NORMAL AND DIABETIC HUMAN SUBJECTS
1Muhammad Shoaib Akhtar, 2Robina Kausar, 3Muhammad Salman Akhtar &Amanat Ali
1Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Sargodha, Sargodha,2Department of Rural Home
Economics, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad-Pakistan and Staten Island Hospital, New
York, USA.
ABSTRACT
Prevalence of diabetes mellitus has increased all over the world particularly in the
developing countries including Pakistan. A study was designed to determine the nutritive
value and glycaemic responses of 5 different test and control meals including chapatti +
eggs and three varieties of KFC burger (Zinger, Chicken, Sub 60) and local burgers. To
determine the nutritive value approximate analysis (CHO, Protein, fat, ash, fibre
contents) of 6 different meals were done and to determine the glycaemic responses blood
was taken by Finger Prick method and glycaemic responses were noted after 0, 30, 60,
90, 180, 120 minutes for diabetic volunteers on 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120 minutes for
normal volunteers. It was observed that all the five burgers included in the study possess
high glycaemic indices. It is conceivable; therefore, that diabetic patients and obese
individuals should not take all these burgers in their daily routine
Key words: Nutritive value, Glycaemic index, Burger, diabetes,
Address for Correspondence: Prof Dr Muhammad Shoaib Akhtar, Department of
Pharmacy, University of Sargodha, Sargodha-Pakistan. Email: drmsakhtar@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
Diabetes mellitus has been described a metabolic disorder characterized by chronic
hyperglycaemia due to relative insulin deficiency or resistance to insulin both. While the
prevalence of diabetes mellitus has been increased all over the world particularly so in
developing countries including Pakistan. No accurate figures for prevalence of diabetes in
Pakistan are available even through there have been several small-scale studies conducted in
different parts of the country. The prevalence figures for diabetes vary from 5.3% to 16.2%
(Sammad, 1993).
In a study conducted to determine the population-based survey regarding the prevalence of
diabetes mellitus and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and its relationship to age and obesity in
2 | J App Pharm 02(03): 191-196 (2011) Akhtar et al., 2011
Journal of Applied Pharmacy (ISSN 19204159); 34-115 V North Saskatoon SK Canada
S7L3E4 Tel.: +13062619809, www.japharmacy.com
rural area of Shikarpur in Sindh province of Pakistan during 1994. They used WHO criteria for
this study. Oral glucose tolerance tests were performed in a stratified random sample of 967
adults, (387 men, 580 women) between the age of twenty-five years and above. This showed the
prevalence rate of diabetes 16.2% (9% known and 7.2% newly diagnosed) in men and 11.7%
(6.3% known and 5.3% newly diagnosed) in women. The prevalence increased to almost 30%
and 21% in 65-74 years old men and women respectively. IGT was detected in 8.2% of men and
14.3% of women. As such according to this study total glucose intolerance (diabetes and IGT
combined) was present in 25% of the subjects examined (Jawaid and Jafary, 2003).
The glycaemic index (GI) express the rise of blood glucose eating a food against a standard
blood glucose cure after glucose or (white bread) in the same subject. Most investigators have
found that GI of a meal of mixed foods can be predicted from GI of its constituent foods (Jenkins
et al. 1988).
Increased prevalence of diabetes and hypertension has been attributed to the newly acquired
affluence by some lack of physical exercise and bad eating habits. With the fast food outlets
becoming craze among the new generation, we might see a sharp increase after another 10 years.
Moreover complications will be seen much more in our elderly population (youngster) in the
days to come (Jawaid and Jafary, 2003).
Burgers has become very popular fast food among children as well as in adults. In today’s life,
world round us looks as it can not help anyone. But you can see burgers everywhere. As the
demand for the burger is increasing. As well as diseases associated with it is also increasing
including, obesity, diabetes or cardic diseases. Present study was undertaken to determine the
glycaemic index and nutritive value of burgers to overcome the diabetes disease or their
responses towards diabetic and normal subjects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Chapatti + egg dish was prepared at home and three different varieties of burger that will be
taken from KFC Faisalabad. Burger Varieties: 1) Zinger, 2) Chicken, 3) Sub-60 and local burger,
were included in this study. Approximate analysis was done to determine the %age of CHO,
protein, fat, fibre and total ash contents.
Determination of blood glucose responses of burgers
Groups of Six (6) normal and six (6), diabetic volunteers were selected randomly from
Faisalabad city. The group of normal volunteers of both sexes between the age groups of 20-55
years were randomly selected the same way the diabetic volunteers will be selected. The blood
glucose level of test subjects were determined by a glucometer taking capillary blood from
diabetic volunteers at 0, 30, 60, 90, 120 and 180 minutes. Blood glucose levels of normal subject
were determined at 0 hours (fasting), 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes. Because the insulin
and glucose responses in blood of normal volunteers are very quicker, the glycaemic indexes
were determined by the following formula:
3 | J App Pharm 02(03): 191-196 (2011) Akhtar et al., 2011
Journal of Applied Pharmacy (ISSN 19204159); 34-115 V North Saskatoon SK Canada
S7L3E4 Tel.: +13062619809, www.japharmacy.com
Glycaemic index = 100 x
(50g) tescarbohydra for curve the under Area
meals test for curve under Area
ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be applied by statistical analysis (Steel and Torrie, 1980).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Glycaemic index of test burgers in diabetic subjects
The glycaemic indices (GI) of five varieties of burger were calculated by using 50 g
available carbohydrates from chapatti and fried egg as standard and its GI was taken as 100. The
GI values of test burger in diabetic subjects have been given in Table 1 which clearly show that
Zinger Burger has a mean G.I value of 41.09 in diabetic subjects while the lowest and highest
G.I. values were ranged from 9.50-74.80 respectively.
The mean G.I value of Col. Chicken Burger was 74.06 while its G.I values in diabetic is
ranged from 35.00-101.8.
Glycaemic index (GI) of the test burgers in normal subjects
The glycaemic indices (GI) of the five varieties of burger were calculated taking 50 g
available carbohydrate from Chapatti and egg as standard food taking its GI as 100. The
glycaemic indices of different varieties of burger are given in table 1.
Table 1: Glycaemic indices of KFC and local burger in diabetic subjects
Subject
Chapatti
+
Egg
Zinger
Burger
Col.
Chicken
Burger
Sub-60
Burger
Jamal
Sweets
Chicken
Burger
Ideal Sweets
Chicken
Burger
Jawad 100.0 45.93 77.02 78.88 20.50 119.3
Rashid 100.0 9.50 35.00 26.00 21.00 107.0
Hassan 100.0 42.68 97.56 30.65 42.68 56.10
Shamim
100.0 64.68 101.86 6.12 28.62 64.31
Amina 100.0 74.80 70.08 42.13 126.4 92.91
Samina 100.0 8.93 62.86 23.05 68.57 128.57
Mean
±
SEM 100.0
±
0.0 74.09
±
11.18 74.06
±
10.00 34.47
±
10.09 51.29
±
16.72 94.69
±
12.00
4 | J App Pharm 02(03): 191-196 (2011) Akhtar et al., 2011
Journal of Applied Pharmacy (ISSN 19204159); 34-115 V North Saskatoon SK Canada
S7L3E4 Tel.: +13062619809, www.japharmacy.com
Table 2: Glycaemic indices of KFC and local burger in normal subjects
Subject Chapatti
+
Egg
Zinger
Burger
Col.
Chicken
Burger
Sub-60
Burger
Jamal Sweets
Chicken
Burger
Ideal Sweets
Chicken
Burger
Kishwar
100.0 272.00 60.00 292.00 100.0 80.00
Shazia 100.0 42.11 33.33 15.79 59.65 56.14
Beenish 100.0 233.33 216.67 150.00 100.00 75.00
Adnan 100.0 262.50 37.50 225.00 356.25 250.00
Anwar 100.0 117.86 146.43 100.00 114.29 275.0
Qaiser 100.0 185.0 155.00 310.00 260.0 250.0
Mean
±
SEM 100.0
±
0.0 185.47
±
36.89 108.15
±
30.74 182.13
±
46.80 165.03
±
47.51 164.36
±
42.32
The mean GI value with Sub-60 Burger was 182.13 then GI value of Sub-60 Burger was ranged
from 15.79±310.00; whereas GI value of Jamal Sweets Chicken Burger was ranged from
59.65±356.25. The Mean GI value of Jamal Sweets Chicken Burger was 165.03. GI value of
Ideal Sweets Chicken Burger ranged from 56.14±275.00. The mean GI value of Ideal Chicken
Burger was 164.36 (Table 2).
The glycaemic index (GI) is a classification of carbohydrate foods based on their acute blood
glucose responses, it should not be used without also considering information about the chemical
composition of foods (Jenkins et al. 1981). The GI has been recommended to help guide food
choice (FAO, 1998) because high GI foods have been shown to improve blood glucose control in
people with diabetes (Brand-Miller et al. 2003) to increase insulin sensitivity and β-cell function
(Wolever and Mehling, 2002) and to reduce serum triacylglycerol (Jenkins et al. 1987). In
addition low GI diet has been associated with reduced risk, for developing diabetes (Liu et al.
2000). GI may be used as a tool in planning diet for diabetic (Jenkin et al. 1998).
The glycaemic index of Zinger Burger was found to be 41.09 in diabetic and 185.47 in normal
subjects. It has relatively higher amount of fat i.e. 25%. This high amount of fat might have
delayed the gastric emptying and hence glucose and insulin responses (Welch et al. 1987).
Col. Chicken Burger has GI of 74.06 in diabetic and 108.15 in normal subjects. The GI value is
high because burger consisting of bun or bread contain large amount of carbohydrates and lack
of fibre. Sub-60 Burger has GI of 34.47 in diabetic while in normal it was 182.13. Sub-60 Burger
was found to have the lowest GI than other burger varieties in diabetic subjects.
5 | J App Pharm 02(03): 191-196 (2011) Akhtar et al., 2011
Journal of Applied Pharmacy (ISSN 19204159); 34-115 V North Saskatoon SK Canada
S7L3E4 Tel.: +13062619809, www.japharmacy.com
Jamal’s sweet chicken burger has 51.29 in diabetic subjects and 65.03 in normal subjects,
glycaemic index GI of Ideal’s Sweet Chicken Burger was found to be 94.69 in diabetic while in
normal subjects. It was found to be 164.36, Ideal Chicken Burger was found to be high GI value
for diabetic.
All burger varieties included in the present study had high amount of fat ranged from 13.6-25%.
This high amount of fat might have delayed the gastric emptying and hence glucose and insulin
response. For the diabetic patients, it has already been reported that reducing the blood glucose
raising potential of the diet by using low glycaemic index starchy foods. This has been found to
be associated with improved blood glucose and lipid controls in patients with diabetes
(Fontvielle et al,. 1992).
REFERENCES
Brand-Miller, J.C. 2003. Glycaemic load and chronic disease. Nutr. Rev. 61: S49-55.
FAO/WHO, 1997. Carbohydrate in human nutrition. Resort of A Joint FAO/WHO Export
Consultation Rome, 4-18, April, 1997.
Fontivette, A.M., S.W. Rizkalla, A. Penfornis, M. Acosta, F.R.J. Bornet and G. Slana, 1992.
The use of low glycaemic index food improves metabolic control of diabetic patients over
five weeks. Diabetic Med. 9: 444-450.
Jawaid, S.A. and M.H. Jafary, 2003. Training of nurses in diabetic care centre in Pakistan.
Pak. J. Med. Sci., 19(2): 67-69.
Jenkins, D.J,. T.M. Wolewer and A.L. Jenkins, 1988. Starchy foods and glycaemic index.
Diabetes Care 11(2): 14p-159.
Jenkins, D.J,. T.M. Wolewer and A.L. Jenkins, 1988. Starchy foods and glycaemic index.
Diabetes Care 11(2): 145-159.
Jenkins, D.J., T.M. Wolever, R.H. Taylor et al. 1981. Glycaemic index of foods: a
physiological basis for carbohydrate exchange. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 34: 362-366.
Jenkins, D.J.A., T.M.S. Wolever, J. Kalmusky, et al. 1987. Low glycaemic index in diet in
hyperlipidemia: use of traditional starchy foods. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 46: 66-71.
Liu, S., W.C. Willett, M.J. Stampfer et al. 2000. A prospective study of dietary glycaemic
load, carbohydrate intake and risk of coronary heart disease in US women. Am. J. Clin.
Nutr. 71: 1455-1461.
Sammad, A.S. 1993. Diabetes mellitus: A major health problem in Pakistan. Pak. Med. J.
124(2): 15-18.
Steel, R.G.D. and J.H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw Hill
Book Company, Inc. New York, USA.
6 | J App Pharm 02(03): 191-196 (2011) Akhtar et al., 2011
Journal of Applied Pharmacy (ISSN 19204159); 34-115 V North Saskatoon SK Canada
S7L3E4 Tel.: +13062619809, www.japharmacy.com
Welch, I.M.C.L., C. Brug, S.E. Hill and N.W. Read, 1987. Dvodenal and meal lipid
suppresses postprandial blood glucose and insulin responses in man possible implication for
the dietary management of diabetes mellitus. Clin. Sci. (Lond.). 72: 209-216.
Wolever, T.M.S. and C. Mehling, 2002. High-carbohydrate-low-glycaemic index dietary of
advice improves glucose deposition index in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. Br. J.
Nutr. 87: 477-487.
