↓ Skip to main content

The impact of eating methods on eating rate and glycemic response in healthy adults

Overview of attention for article published in Physiology & Behavior, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
99 X users
facebook
8 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The impact of eating methods on eating rate and glycemic response in healthy adults
Published in
Physiology & Behavior, December 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.12.014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lijuan Sun, Dinesh Viren Ranawana, Wei Jie Kevin Tan, Yu Chin Rina Quek, Christiani Jeyakumar Henry

Abstract

Singapore is an island state that is composed of three major ethnic groups, namely Chinese, Malay and Indian. Its inhabitants consume food either using chopsticks (Chinese), fingers (Malay and Indian) or spoon (Chinese, Malay and Indian). Previous work by our group showed that the degree of mastication significantly influenced the glycemic response. The degree of mastication in turn may depend on the eating method as the amount of food taken per mouthful and chewing time differs between eating methods. Eleven healthy volunteers came in on six non-consecutive days to the laboratory and evaluated three methods of eating white rice (spoon, chopsticks and fingers) once and the reference food (glucose solution) three times in a random order. Their glycemic response (GR) was measured for the subsequent 120min. Mastication parameters were determined using surface electrode electromyography. The GR to white rice eating with chopsticks was significantly lower than spoon. The GI of eating rice with chopsticks was 68 which is significantly lower than eating with spoon (GI=81). However there were no differences between fingers and spoon, and between fingers and chopsticks either in GR 120min or GI. The inter-individual number of mouthful, number of chews per mouthful, chewing time per mouthful and the total time taken to consume the whole portion of rice were significantly different between spoon and chopsticks groups. Significant correlations between the number of mouthful to take the entire portion of rice and amount of rice per mouthful during mastication and the GR were observed for eating rice with spoon and chopsticks, but not for fingers. The results suggest that individual differences in number of mouthful and amount of rice per mouthful may be two of the causes for inter-individual differences in the GR between spoon and chopsticks. The present study suggests that eating rice with different feeding tools has different chewing times and amount of food taken per mouthful and then alters the GI of the rice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 99 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Other 6 9%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 11%
Sports and Recreations 5 8%
Psychology 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 17 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 115. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2024.
All research outputs
#369,713
of 25,652,464 outputs
Outputs from Physiology & Behavior
#127
of 5,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,133
of 369,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physiology & Behavior
#4
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,652,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,567 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 369,567 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.