Table 3.
Plasma glucose and insulin concentrations during ipGTT with deuterated glucose
| CON (n = 11) | HFP (n = 11) | HFL (n = 11) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fasting glucose (mM) | 5.7 ± 0.4 | 8.0 ± 0.5 ** | 7.7 ± 0.3 ** |
| AUCg (mM · h) | 15.3 ± 0.5 | 22.5 ± 0.7 *** | 25.6 ± 0.8 ***,†† |
| Fasting insulin (pM) | 163 ± 23 | 438 ± 82 ** | 463 ± 34 *** |
| AUCi (pM · h) | 670 ± 65 | 1622 ± 208 *** | 1421 ± 112 ** |
| AUCg*AUCi (mM · h*pM · h) | 9138 ± 689 | 41146 ± 6721 *** | 36262 ± 2635 ** |
| HOMA-IR | 33.8 ± 4.8 | 134.8 ± 24.3 ** | 171.0 ± 13.3 *** |
| 2H2-glucose concentrations (n = 6 per diet group) | |||
| 2 · AUCd2g (mM · h) | 6.0 ± 1.0 | 9.6 ± 0.9 * | 9.1 ± 2.5 |
| AUCEN (% 2H2-glucose · h) | 36.2 ± 4.9 | 37.5 ± 0.9 | 34.3 ± 1.0 |
| Maximal EN (% 2H2-glucose) | 22.6 ± 2.8 | 23.2 ± 0.7 | 20.9 ± 0.6 |
| Time to maximal EN (min) | 46.8 ± 4.2 | 52.8 ± 2.2 | 58.4 ± 1.6 * |
Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. CON, normal chow control diet; HFP, high-fat palm oil diet; HFL, high-fat lard diet; AUCg, area under the glucose curve; AUCi, area under the insulin curve; HOMA-IR, homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance; AUCd2g, area under the 2H2-glucose curve (a factor 2 is necessary for comparison of area under the 2H2-glucose curve to area under the glucose curve because the glucose injected was only 50 % enriched in 2H2-glucose); EN, glucose enrichment (% 2H2-glucose of total glucose); AUCEN, area under the EN curve. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 vs. CON; †† p < 0.01 vs. HFP