Content uploaded by Sidra Khalid
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sidra Khalid on Nov 18, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
EAS Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies
Abbreviated Key Title: EAS J Humanit Cult Stud
ISSN: 2663-0958 (Print) & ISSN: 2663-6743 (Online)
Published By East African Scholars Publisher, Kenya
Volume-2 | Issue-5| Sept-Oct 2020 | DOI: 10.36349/easjhcs.2020.v02i05.006
*Corresponding Author: Sidra Khalid 38
Research Article
Glycemic Response of Natural Sweeteners like Sugarcane Juice, Honey
and Jaggery in Healthy Individuals
Amir Iqbal, Hafsa Kamran, Sidra Khalid*, Shaista Jabeen, Maria Aslam
University institute of Diet and Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of allied Health Sciences, The University of Lahore, Pakistan
Article History
Received: 01.10.2020
Accepted: 15.10.2020
Published: 23.10.2020
Journal homepage:
https://www.easpublisher.com/easjhcs
Quick Response Code
Abstract: Use of simple sugars, artificial and processed sweeteners enhances the risk of
diabetes and obesity. People were unaware of benefits of natural sweeteners. An
experimental study based on sample size of 10 participants was conducted, to find out the
glycemic response of natural sweeteners like sugarcane juice, honey and jaggery in healthy
individuals. They were instructed to consume all the juice served in a period of 5 min.
Further blood samples were taken at 0, 30, 60, 90, 120 and 150 minutes after consumption.
Participants were remained sedentary during each session. Blood was obtained by finger-
prick and tested by the glucometer. Dextrose means values 91.3, 138.5, 116.7, 96.2, 88.3,
80.9. Honey mean values 84.5 115.5 96.1 79.7 72.7 75.4. Jaggery mean values 87.4, 129.6,
103.1, 90.4, 86, 80.7. Sugarcane juice means values 83.3, 102.1, 97.4, 91.9, 76.6, 74.6 at 0,
30, 60, 90, 120, 150 minutes respectively. In conclusion, detailed study of glycemic values
of dextrose, honey, jaggery and sugarcane juice shows that all are good glycemic
substances. So, healthy persons can be recommended to use natural sweeteners because of
their good glycemic response and nutrient value. Being natural sweeteners (honey, jaggery,
sugarcane) they have pure nutrient value and they boost up blood sugar level energizing the
body to carry out the daily activities in a healthy way without making people obese.
Keywords: Glycemic response, Knowledge, Attitudes, BMI, Natural sweeteners, Diabetes,
Hypertension.
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s): This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (CC BY-NC 4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial use provided the original
author and source are credited.
INTRODUCTION
The glycemic index was invented in 1981 by
David Jenkins and Thomas Wolver to classify
carbohydrates containing foods according to their
ability that how fast they increase blood sugar levels in
body [1]. The glycemic response is a proportion of the
effect of sustenance on blood glucose levels.
Nourishment with quicker rates of processing and
retention of sugars cause blood glucose levels to
increment coming about most elevated glycemic
reaction in contrast with those with lower glycemic
reaction in which glucose is discharges gradually into
blood and is critical in the control of diabetes [2]. The
food and its composition of starch and its digestion rate
are blood glucose determinants [3]. Glycemic index and
glycemic load are diverse terms utilized for glycemic
response [4]. Differences in the thickness of semi-solid
foods would similarly affect glycemic response.
Viscosity of food may modulate insulin and glucose
response [5]. Two kinds of sugars are available i.e.
common sugars of plant origin and artificial sweeteners.
Sweetening agents increase the perception of sweet
taste. Natural sweeteners are flavored over synthetic
sweeteners since they don’t have adverse effects on
health. Non-saccharide is low calorific, nontoxic and
too sweet in nature and can defeat the issues of sucrose
and artificial sweeteners [6]. High glycemic load diets
are thought to be weight gain diets because of higher
postprandial insulin reaction following ingestion of a
high glycemic load dinner, which stimulates uptake of
glucose by insulin responsive tissues, prompting a fall
in blood glucose focus and more suppression of free
fatty acids [7]. Diets high in glycemic load may increase
CVD risks through postprandial hyper-insulinemia and
insulin obstruction prompting dyslipidemia and
irritation and through postprandial hyperglycemia by
inciting oxidative pressure, which adversely impacts
circulatory system clot formation, and endothelium-
dependent blood flow [8]. Vegetables, pasta, leafy foods
items are classified low glycemic index foods (55 or
less on the glucose reference scale). breads, breakfast
grains, rice and snack items, including the whole grains,
are accessible in both high (70 or more) and low
glycemic list frames. Mostly varieties of rice and potato
are high glycemic index foods [9]. The utilization of
high glycemic index foods is noted to increase chances
of diabetes while the utilization of low glycemic list
diets may cause weight reduction and glycemic control.
In any case, the blend of activity preparing with weight
control plans differs by glycemic index [10]. The
utilization of foods and beverages containing non-
nutritive sugars has significantly expanded in the course
of the last few years [11]. Characteristics sugars like
nectar have numerous therapeutic properties, including
antibacterial, hepatoprotective, cell reinforcements and
Amir Iqbal et al; EAS J Humanit Cult Stud; Vol-2: Iss- 5 (Sept-Oct, 2020): 38-41
© East African Scholars Publisher, Kenya 39
anti-hypertensive impacts. It lessens hyperglycemia in
diabetes [12].
Sugarcane juice is a characteristic beverage
well known in most tropical Asian areas. Sugarcane
juice is successful during exercise in comfortable
environment to regulate blood sugar levels [13]. Jaggery
is sugarcane-based product made by the concentration
of sugarcane juice with no utilization of chemicals. It is
accessible as strong squares and in semi-fluid structure.
It contains the natural vitamins and minerals and
nutrients innately present in sugarcane juice and it is
one of the healthiest sugars in the world. The nutrients
present in the jaggery have anti carcinogenic and anti-
toxic properties [14]. High glycemic load diets
apparently improve craving and advance positive
vitality balance [15]. Increase in protein content and an
unassuming decrease in the glycemic record prompted
support of weight loss [16]. The glycemic index
illustrates how quick a carbohydrate food increase sugar
levels in the blood. High glycemic index of a food
indicates its rapid action in increasing glucose levels
and is less beneficial to control sugar whereas a food
with low glycemic index value is more beneficial in this
regard. Use of non-nutritive foods items and beverages
has hiked up in recent years [17].
Consumption of simple sugars and artificial
sweeteners in the form of carbonated drinks is common
now days. People are unaware of benefits of natural
sweeteners like honey, jaggery and sugarcane juice.
These are antioxidants which prevent from various kind
of diseases and are also rich in nutrients. Study was
aimed to find out the glycemic response of natural
sweeteners in healthy individuals so that awareness
could be created regarding use of natural sweeteners.
METHODOLOGY
To carry out the research an experimental
study was designed and experiments were performed in
Nutrition lab 101, University Institute of Diet and
Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences,
The University of Lahore. Total of 10 healthy
individuals with no previous medical diagnosis (aged
between 18 to 45 years) were selected for the study
period of 4 months. Diabetic, Obese or individuals with
any other medical diagnosis, or people below or above
the age limit were excluded.
STUDY PROTOCOL
Subjects were examined physically and
anthropometrically. Day before a test subjects were
asked to restrict their participation in intense physical
activity. The entire products sample prepared contained
50gm carbohydrates in 500ml solution. After a 12 hr.
night fasting blood sample were taken and then
prepared sample were provided to the subjects that they
have to consume in 5 minutes. Further blood samples
were taken at 0, 30, 60, 90, 120 and 150 minutes. New
lancet were used at every finger prick. Alcohol swab
were used for cleaning finger. New packed sugar sticks
were used at every blood sample. Accu-check
glucometer were used to find out the sugar levels.
Results of samples were noted on time. Subjects were
remaining sedentary during each session of experiment.
RESULTS
Study included 6 subjects were aged between
18 to 27 years and 4 subjects were aged between 31 to
44 years and the mean age of these subjects was 29.2.
Among the total participants 5 were males and 5 were
females. According to the body mass index 4 subjects
were having normal BMI and 6 subjects were having
overweight. According to the results 3 subjects were
smokers and 7 were non-smokers. According to the
results 2 subjects were taking 7-8 hrs. Sleep, 2 were
sleeping 8-9 hrs. 3 subjects were sleeping 8-10 hrs. 1
subject was sleeping 9-10 hrs. And 2 subjects were
taking sleep 10-12 hrs. Sleep. According to the results 9
subjects were having table sugar and 1 subject was
having Jaggery as sweetener. Results showed that 8
subjects preferred whole wheat chapatti and 2 subjects
preferred white floor chapatti. 1 subject preferred
Brown rice and 9 subjects preferred white rice.
According to the results 7 subjects preferred whole fruit
and 3 subjects were preferring fruit juices. According to
the results 5 subjects preferred white sugar, 4 subjects
were preferred brown sugar and 1 subject was prefers
jiggery, Table 1.
Amir Iqbal et al; EAS J Humanit Cult Stud; Vol-2: Iss- 5 (Sept-Oct, 2020): 38-41
© East African Scholars Publisher, Kenya 40
Table-1: Frequency distribution of subjects according to attributes:
Sr.no
ATTRITUBES
FREQUENCY
1
No of participants
10
2
Gender
5 Males
5 Females
3
Age limit
18-45 years
4
BMI
4 Normal
6 Over-weight
5
Smoking habit
3 Smokers
7 Non-smokers
6
Sweetener preference
9 Simple sugar
1 Jaggery
7
Use of sugar
5 Table sugar
4 Brown sugar
1 Jaggery
Fig-1: Mean glycemic response of Participants after consumption of honey jaggery sugarcane juice and glucose
According to the results at 0-minute glucose
response in blood was 91.3, honey shows 84.5, jaggery
shows 87.4 and sugarcane juice shows 83.3 of means
values. And after 30 minutes dextrose shows highest
mean value which is 138.5 among all other products
(honey, jaggery, sugarcane juice) i.e. 115.5, 129.6,
102.1 respectively. After 60 minutes again dextrose was
at peak point of mean values of 116.7 among all other
products (honey, jaggery, sugarcane juice) i.e. 96.1,
103.1, 97.4 respectively. After 90 minutes again
dextrose was at top of mean values which is 96.2
among all other products (honey, jaggery, sugarcane
juice) with the means values of 79.7, 90.4, and 91.9
respectively. After 120 minutes once again, dextrose
mean value was at peak point which is 88.3 among
other 3 products (honey, jaggery, and sugarcane juice)
which have the mean values of 72.7, 86, and 76.6
respectively. And after 150 minutes dextrose means
values was at peak point which is 80.9 among all other
products (honey, jaggery, sugarcane juice) with the
means values of 75.4, 80.7, and 74.6 respectively as
shown in Figure 1.
DISCUSSION
In current study total of 10 subjects were
included 5 males and 5 females aged between 18- 44
years. Out of 10 participants 6 subjects were slightly
overweight according to BMI measures and only 3 were
addicted smokers having varied sleep patterns between
8-12 hours.
In a comprehensive study by Uma P et al., an
investigation was carried out to discover the glycemic
indices of jaggery, honey and sucrose that honey can be
recommended as alternative sweetener for sucrose or
not. They suggested that glycemic index for jaggery;
sucrose and honey were practically comparative,
recommending that jaggery, sucrose and honey are all
similarly hyperglycemic. Thus, honey and jaggery can’t
be suggested as an elective sugar for sucrose [18].
Results of present study shows that dextrose has highest
glycemic index starting at 91.3 at 0 min then comes
honey at 84.5, jaggery at 87.4 and sugarcane juice at
83.3. And after 30 minutes dextrose shows highest
mean value which is 138.5 among all other products i.e.
115.5, 129.6, 102.1 respectively. After 60 minutes again
dextrose was at peak point of mean value of 116.7
among all other products i.e. 96.1, 103.1, 97.4
respectively. After 90 minutes again dextrose was at top
of mean values which is 96.2 among all other products
with the means values of 79.7, 90.4, and 91.9
respectively. After 120 minutes once again, dextrose
Amir Iqbal et al; EAS J Humanit Cult Stud; Vol-2: Iss- 5 (Sept-Oct, 2020): 38-41
© East African Scholars Publisher, Kenya 41
mean value was at peak point which is 88.3 among
other 3 products which have the mean values of 72.7,
86, 76.6 respectively. And after 150 minutes dextrose
means values was at peak point which is 80.9 among all
other products with the means values of 75.4, 80.7, and
74.6 respectively. Thus, recommending that honey,
sugarcane juice and jaggery can be used by healthy
individuals.
CONCLUSIONS
Study concluded that glycemic response of
honey, jaggery and sugarcane juice showed that all had
good glycemic response except dextrose which had
high glycemic response. So, natural sweeteners such as
honey jaggery sugarcane juice are better options for
healthy individuals.
REFERENCES
1. Kannar, D., Kitchen, B.J., inventors; Horizon
Science Pty Ltd, assignee. (2012). Natural
sweetener. United States patent US, 112(5):1099-
68.
2. Rana, S., Sharma, S., Katare, C., Shrivatava, V.,
Prasad, G.B. (2012). Glycemic response and
glycemic index of common sweeteners and honey
incorporated products. IOSR J Nurs Health Sci, 1,
40-4.
3. Anderson, G.H., Cho, C.E., Akhavan, T., Mollard,
R.C., Luhovyy, B.L., Finocchiaro, E.T. (2010).
Relation between estimates of cornstarch
digestibility by the Englyst in vitro method and
glycemic response, subjective appetite, and short-
term food intake in young men. The American
journal of clinical nutrition, 91(4), 932-939.
4. Augustin, L.S., Kendall, C.W., Jenkins, D.J.,
Willett, W.C., Astrup, A., Barclay, A.W., Björck,
I., Brand-Miller, J.C., Brighenti, F., Buyken, A.E.,
Ceriello, A. (2015). Glycemic index, glycemic load
and glycemic response: an International Scientific
Consensus Summit from the International
Carbohydrate Quality Consortium
(ICQC). Nutrition, Metabolism and cardiovascular
diseases, 25(9), 795-815.
5. Zhu, Y., Hsu, W.H., Hollis, J.H. (2013). The
impact of food viscosity on eating rate, subjective
appetite, glycemic response and gastric emptying
rate. PLoS One, 8(6), e67482.
6. Priya, K., Gupta, V.R., Srikanth, K. (2011). Natural
sweeteners: A complete review. Journal of
Pharmacy Research, 4(7), 2034-2039.
7. Ludwig, D. S. (2002). The glycemic index:
physiological mechanisms relating to obesity,
diabetes, and cardiovascular
disease. Jama, 287(18), 2414-2423.
8. Liu, S., Willett, W.C., Stampfer, M.J., Hu, B.,
Franz, M., Sampson, L., Hennekens, C.H., Manson,
J.E. (2000). A prospective study of dietary
glycemic load, carbohydrate intake, and risk of
coronary heart disease in US women. The
American journal of clinical nutrition, 71(6), 1455-
1461.
9. American Diabetes Association. (2015). Standards
of medical care in diabetes—2015 abridged for
primary care providers. Clinical diabetes: a
publication of the American Diabetes
Association, 33(2), 97.
10. Dixon, J.B., Chuang, L.M., Chong, K., Chen, S.C.,
Lambert, G.W., Straznicky, N.E., Lambert, E.A.,
Lee, W.J. (2013). Predicting the glycemic response
to gastric bypass surgery in patients with type 2
diabetes. Diabetes care, 36(1), 20-26.
11. Anton, S.D., Martin, C.K., Han, H., Coulon, S.,
Cefalu, W.T., Geiselman, P., Williamson, D.A.
(2010). Effects of stevia, aspartame, and sucrose on
food intake, satiety, and postprandial glucose and
insulin levels. Appetite, 55(1), 37-43.
12. Jakobsen, M.U., Dethlefsen, C., Joensen, A.M.,
Stegger, J., Tjønneland, A., Schmidt, E.B.,
Overvad, K. (2010). Intake of carbohydrates
compared with intake of saturated fatty acids and
risk of myocardial infarction: importance of the
glycemic index. The American journal of clinical
nutrition, 91(6), 1764-1768.
13. Shera, A.S., Jawad, F., Maqsood, A. (2007).
Prevalence of diabetes in Pakistan. Diabetes
research and clinical practice, 76(2), 219-222.
14. Atkinson, F.S., Foster-Powell, K., Brand-Miller,
J.C. (2008). International tables of glycemic index
and glycemic load values: 2008. Diabetes
care, 31(12), 2281-2283.
15. Solomon, T.P., Haus, J.M., Kelly, K.R., Cook,
M.D., Filion, J., Rocco, M., Kashyap, S.R.,
Watanabe, R.M., Barkoukis, H., Kirwan, J.P.
(2010). A low–glycemic index diet combined with
exercise reduces insulin resistance, postprandial
hyperinsulinemia, and glucose-dependent
insulinotropic polypeptide responses in obese,
prediabetic humans. The American journal of
clinical nutrition, 92(6), 1359-1368.
16. Drakos, S.G., Pagani, F.D., Lundberg, M.S.,
Baldwin, J.T. (2017). Advancing the science of
myocardial recovery with mechanical circulatory
support: a working group of the national, heart,
lung, and blood institute. JACC: Basic to
Translational Science, 2(3), 335-340.
17. Houry, D.E., Salhi, B.A. (2014). Acute
complications of pregnancy. Rosen's Emergency
Medicine: Concepts and Clinical Practice. 8th ed.
Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders. 94(4):1360-
92
18. Uma, P., Hariharan, R.S., Ramani, V., Seshia, V.
(1987). Glycaemic indices of different
sugars. International Journal of Diabetes in
Developing Countries, 7, 78-82.