Abstract
The consumption of good tasting rice, mainly soft-textured white rice with low amylose content, has substantially increased in China as living standards improve. However, this diet change may increase the risk of developing type II diabetes because the soft-textured white rice is generally less resistant to digestion and has a higher glycemic index. In contrast, intake of brown rice is inversely associated with type II diabetes risk. This study was conducted to test the possibility that brown rice processed from soft-textured cultivars has both acceptable texture and improved health benefits. Texture and digestion properties were compared between white and brown rice of five indica cultivars preferred by Chinese consumers. Mean hardness was 33% higher while mean springiness was 5% lower for cooked brown rice than for cooked white rice. As compared to cooked white rice, cooked brown rice had a 41% longer mean active digestion duration but 31% lower mean glucose production rate and 11% lower mean total glucose production from starch digestion. However, the differences in texture and starch digestion properties between cooked brown and white rice were affected by cultivar identity. Brown rice processed from suitable cultivars with both a relatively thinner bran layer and relatively higher grain amylose content met consumer requirements in terms of acceptable texture and improved health benefits.
Subject terms: Biochemistry, Plant sciences, Health care
Introduction
China has the largest population of rice consumers in the world, with more than 65% of the population (~ 900 million people) eating rice as a staple food1. China has been self-sufficient in rice supply due to an increase in grain yield per unit area by more than 50% since 19802. The sufficient supply of rice has led to dietary changes such as replacing coarse cereals (i.e., cereal grains other than rice and wheat) and whole grains (e.g., brown rice—the rice from which only the husk has been removed) with polished rice (i.e., white rice—the rice from which the husk, bran, and germ have been removed)3,4. More recently, as living standards improve in China, the production and consumption of good tasting rice, mainly soft-textured white rice with low amylose content, has substantially increased5,6.
There is ample evidence that consuming more white rice is associated with an increased risk of type II diabetes in Asian populations including the Chinese7,8. The increased consumption of low amylose, soft-textured white rice may increase the risk of developing type II diabetes because this type of rice is generally less resistant to digestion and has a higher glycemic index9. On the contrary, intake of coarse cereals and whole grains including brown rice is inversely associated with type II diabetes risk10,11. In addition, whole grain foods have other health benefits, such as reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer12,13, which are of increasing concern both nationally and globally due to their high mortality rates14.
By comprehensively considering consumer preferences for soft-textured rice and the health benefits of brown rice, we speculated that brown rice processed from soft-textured cultivars may have both acceptable texture and improved health benefits. To test this, we conducted a study comparing the texture and digestion properties of white and brown rice of five indica cultivars preferred by consumers in China.
Results
Averaged across five cultivars, the milling recovery rate was 21% higher for brown than for white rice (Table 1). Brown rice had 9% lower mean amylose content compared to white rice. Mean protein content in brown rice was 13% higher than that in white rice. The differences in amylose and protein contents between brown and white rice were affected by cultivar identity. Amylose contents in brown rice of Meixiangzhan 2, Nongxiang 42, Taoyouxiangzhan, and Yuzhenxiang were higher than that in white rice of Xiangyaxiangzhen. Protein contents in brown rice of Meixiangzhan 2, Nongxiang 42, Xiangyaxiangzhen, and Yuzhenxiang were lower than that in white rice of Taoyouxiangzhan.
Table 1.
Milling recovery rate and amylose and protein content of white and brown rice of five cultivars.
| Rice type | Cultivar | Milling recovery rate (g kg–1) | Amylose content (mg g–1) | Protein content (mg g–1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| White rice | Meixiangzhan 2 | 681 | 187 | 59.3 |
| Nongxiang 42 | 659 | 189 | 53.4 | |
| Taoyouxiangzhan | 680 | 178 | 72.9 | |
| Xiangyaxiangzhen | 570 | 112 | 59.0 | |
| Yuzhenxiang | 637 | 179 | 62.2 | |
| Mean | 645 b | 169 a | 61.4 b | |
| Brown rice | Meixiangzhan 2 | 775 | 171 | 67.2 |
| Nongxiang 42 | 794 | 172 | 65.2 | |
| Taoyouxiangzhan | 808 | 167 | 78.5 | |
| Xiangyaxiangzhen | 726 | 101 | 69.9 | |
| Yuzhenxiang | 792 | 161 | 67.2 | |
| Mean | 779 a | 154 b | 69.6 a |
Means within a column sharing different letters are significantly different from each other at the 0.05 probability level.
Cooked brown rice had 33% higher mean hardness than cooked white rice (Table 2). Mean springiness was 5% lower for cooked brown than white rice, while there were no significant differences in mean cohesiveness and resilience. There was no significant difference in mean chewiness between cooked brown and white rice. The differences between cooked brown and white rice in texture profiles, especially hardness, were influenced by cultivar identity. The hardness values of cooked brown rice of Meixiangzhan 2, Nongxiang 42, Taoyouxiangzhan, and Xiangyaiangzhen were lower than that of cooked white rice of Yuzhenxiang.
Table 2.
Texture profiles of cooked white and brown rice of five cultivars.
| Rice type | Cultivar | Hardness (g) | Springiness | Cohesiveness | Resilience | Chewiness (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White rice | Meixiangzhan 2 | 729 | 0.769 | 0.603 | 0.439 | 342 |
| Nongxiang 42 | 769 | 0.793 | 0.612 | 0.428 | 366 | |
| Taoyouxiangzhan | 753 | 0.774 | 0.600 | 0.395 | 364 | |
| Xiangyaxiangzhen | 603 | 0.756 | 0.491 | 0.341 | 227 | |
| Yuzhenxiang | 992 | 0.786 | 0.541 | 0.393 | 444 | |
| Mean | 769 b | 0.776 a | 0.569 a | 0.399 a | 349 a | |
| Brown rice | Meixiangzhan 2 | 956 | 0.752 | 0.550 | 0.398 | 352 |
| Nongxiang 42 | 938 | 0.754 | 0.549 | 0.388 | 361 | |
| Taoyouxiangzhan | 938 | 0.725 | 0.520 | 0.361 | 343 | |
| Xiangyaxiangzhen | 866 | 0.723 | 0.515 | 0.385 | 297 | |
| Yuzhenxiang | 1415 | 0.752 | 0.563 | 0.418 | 551 | |
| Mean | 1023 a | 0.741 b | 0.539 a | 0.390 a | 381 a |
Means within a column sharing different letters are significantly different from each other at the 0.05 probability level.
Mean active digestion duration for cooked brown rice was 41% longer than that for cooked white rice (Table 3). The mean glucose production rate was 31% lower for cooked brown rice than for cooked white rice. Cooked brown rice had 11% lower mean total glucose production compared to cooked white rice. Differences in starch digestion properties between cooked brown and white rice were affected by cultivar identity. In particular, cooked brown rice of Xiangyaxiangzhen had a shorter active digestion duration and higher glucose production rate than cooked white rice of Meixiangzhan 2, Nongxiang 42, Taoyouxiangzhan, and Yuzhenxiang.
Table 3.
Starch digestion properties of cooked white and brown rice of five cultivars.
| Rice type | Cultivar | Active digestion duration (min) | Glucose production rate (mg g–1 min–1) | Total glucose production (mg g–1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| White rice | Meixiangzhan 2 | 88 | 4.22 | 373 |
| Nongxiang 42 | 100 | 3.65 | 366 | |
| Taoyouxiangzhan | 86 | 4.02 | 344 | |
| Xiangyaxiangzhen | 76 | 4.82 | 367 | |
| Yuzhenxiang | 79 | 4.33 | 340 | |
| Mean | 86 b | 4.21 a | 358 a | |
| Brown rice | Meixiangzhan 2 | 154 | 2.27 | 345 |
| Nongxiang 42 | 142 | 2.40 | 302 | |
| Taoyouxiangzhan | 117 | 2.73 | 296 | |
| Xiangyaxiangzhen | 76 | 4.35 | 328 | |
| Yuzhenxiang | 115 | 2.76 | 317 | |
| Mean | 121 a | 2.90 b | 318 b |
Means within a column sharing different letters are significantly different from each other at the 0.05 probability level.
Discussion
Overall, shifting from white to brown rice resulted in decreased eating quality (i.e., increased hardness and decreased springiness) of cooked rice of tested cultivars. The decreased eating quality of cooked brown rice compared to cooked white rice was mainly attributable to the retained fiber-rich bran layer15, which could be reflected by the different milling recovery rates of brown and white rice (Table 1). Protein is abundant in the bran layer of brown rice15, and an increase in grain protein content generally leads to a harder gel consistency and a lower paste viscosity of rice flour and decreased eating quality of cooked rice16,17. Therefore, in the present study, the decreased eating quality of cooked brown rice compared to cooked white rice was also attributable to an increase in grain protein content.
Grain amylose content is also a key determinant of the eating quality of cooked rice, and higher grain amylose content usually leads to a harder texture of cooked rice18. However, in this study, the harder texture of cooked brown rice compared to white rice was not explained by the difference in grain amylose content, because brown rice had lower grain amylose content compared to white rice.
The starch digestion of cooked rice was generally slower due to shifting from white to brown rice. This could explain why intake of brown rice is inversely associated with the risk of developing type II diabetes10,11, since rice starch with higher resistance to digestion has a lower glycemic index19–21. Grain amylose content is a critical component determining the starch digestion rate of cooked rice, and higher grain amylose content is always associated with a higher resistant starch content and a lower starch digestion rate9. However, this was not responsible for the slower starch digestion rate in cooked brown compared to white rice in this study, because the grain amylose content was lower in brown than in white rice.
The starch digestion rate of cooked rice also depends on non-starch components such as fiber, protein, lipids, and polyphenols, which are rich in the bran layer of brown rice15. These non-starch components may complex with starch and inhibit starch digestion by affecting starch properties; producing a protective layer around starch; or having antagonistic effects on digestive enzymes22. For example, protein present in endosperm can decrease the starch digestion rate of cooked rice by restricting swelling and reducing the surface area of the starch granules23,24. Therefore, in this study, the slower starch digestion of cooked rice due to shifting from white rice to brown rice was mainly attributable to the retained bran layer that is rich in non-starch components such as protein.
In addition, this study showed that the differences in texture and starch digestion properties between cooked brown and white rice were affected by cultivar identity. In particular, cooked brown rice of Meixiangzhan 2, Nongxiang 42, and Taoyouxiangzhan had lower hardness and chewiness than cooked white rice of Yuzhenxiang and a slower starch digestion rate than cooked white rice of all cultivars. This outcome indicates that selecting suitable cultivars such as Meixiangzhan 2, Nongxiang 42, and Taoyouxiangzhan and processing their grains into brown rice is expected to provide acceptable texture and benefit health. Based on grain quality traits, Meixiangzhan 2, Nongxiang 42, and Taoyouxiangzhan had a relatively thinner bran layer (i.e., lower difference in milling recovery rate between brown and white rice) and relatively higher grain amylose content among the five tested cultivars (Table 1). This finding suggests that bran layer thickness and grain amylose content are important traits for selecting suitable cultivars to produce tasty and healthy brown rice, and highlights the need for determining the optimum range of these two traits through further investigations with more rice cultivars.
There are some limitations that should be acknowledged. This study evaluated the texture acceptability and health benefits of brown rice only by comparing its physicochemical properties with those of white rice, but not by direct consumer involvement. In this regard, it is advocated that the consumer involvement can play a vital role in food and health research25,26. Moreover, there are other grain quality traits, such as aroma and appearance, that determine consumer preference for rice27. Therefore, more studies including consumer organoleptic tests and clinical trials are required to comprehensively evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of brown rice processed from soft-textured cultivars.
Conclusions
Shifting from white to brown rice retains the bran layer with abundant non-starch components such as protein, and consequently leads to decreased eating quality (i.e., increased hardness and decreased springiness) but an increase in health quality (i.e., slower starch digestion) of indica cultivars preferred by Chinese consumers. However, brown rice with acceptable texture and improved health benefits can be obtained by selecting suitable cultivars (e.g., Meixiangzhan 2, Nongxiang 42, and Taoyouxiangzhan) that have a relatively thinner bran layer and relatively higher grain amylose content.
Methods
Rice grains of five indica cultivars—Meixiangzhan 2, Nongxiang 42, Taoyouxiangzhan, Xiangyaxiangzhen, and Yuzhenxiang—were collected from the research base of the Hengyang Academy of Agricultural Sciences (26° 59′ N, 112° 23′ E), Meihua Village, Hunan Province, China in 2020. These rice cultivars have good taste and a soft texture. In particular, four of the five cultivars (i.e., Meixiangzhan 2, Nongxiang 42, Taoyouxiangzhan, and Yuzhenxiang) won the Gold Award of the Eating Quality Evaluation Contest of High-Quality Indica Rice in China. The use of plants in the present study complies with international, national and/or institutional guidelines.
Rice grain samples were air-dried and then stored for three months before analysis. For each cultivar, 100 g of rice grain samples were de-hulled to obtain brown rice and then half of the brown rice was polished to white rice, using a laboratory-scale milling machine (JGMJ8098, Shanghai Jiading Cereals and Oils Instrument Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) and closely following the procedure of the International Standard ISO 6646:201128. Milling recovery rates of brown and white rice were calculated by separately dividing the brown and white rice weight by the grain weight.
About 5 g of brown and white rice flours (filtered through 100 mesh) were prepared for each sample to determine amylose content and protein content according to procedures described by Huang et al.29. In brief, amylose content was measured with the iodine colorimetric method. The protein content was determined by multiplying N content by a conversion factor of 5.95; N content was measured with an automatic Kjeldahl analyzer (Kjeltec-8400, FOSS, Copenhagen, Denmark).
Approximately 10 g of white and brown rice were soaked in 16 ml of distilled water in an aluminum cup for 30 min, and the aluminum cup was then covered with a lid and placed in an electric rice cooker (GDF-2003; Zhuhai Gree Group Co., Ltd., Zhuhai, China) containing approximately 700 ml of boiling water and allowed to steam for 40 min. The lid of the electric rice cooker remained locked for 20 min after steaming was complete. Texture profiles (hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, resilience, and chewiness) of the cooked rice were determined using a texture analyzer (Rapid TA+; Shanghai Tengba Instrument Technology Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China).
Starch digestion properties of the cooked rice were determined using an in vitro method. In detail, 100 mg samples of cooked rice were subjected to in vitro digestion to determine the amount of glucose produced per unit fresh weight at six digestion times (15, 60, 120, 180, 240, and 300 min) using a Glycemic Index Analyser (NutriScan GI20; Next Instruments, Condell Park, NSW, Australia). The starch digestion process of the cooked rice (i.e., the change in the amount of glucose produced over time) was fitted to an exponential association model, y = a[1 − EXP(− bx)], based on goodness of fit and biological plausibility (CurveExpert 1.4; Hyams Development, Chattanooga, TN, USA). The digestion parameters of the cooked rice, including active digestion duration, total glucose production, and glucose production rate, were estimated with y at 95% of a (0.95a) using the following formulas: active digestion duration = LN(0.05)/− b; total glucose production = 0.95a; and glucose production rate = total glucose production/active digestion duration; a and b were obtained from the fitting.
All data were compared between brown and white rice by paired t-tests (DPS 18.10; Analytical Software, Hangzhou, China). Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 probability level.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2016YFD0300509). The authors thank other members of the Crop and Environment Research Center for their help with this study.
Author contributions
M.H. conceived the experiment. X.L., L.H., Z.X., J.C., and F.C. performed the experiment. M.H. analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the article.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Hsiaoping, C. Rice consumption in China: Can China change rice consumption from quantity to quality. In Rice is Life: Scientific Perspectives for the 21st Century (eds. Toriyama, K., Heong, K. L. & Hardy, B.) 497–499 (International Rice Research Institute, 2005).
- 2.Deng N, et al. Closing yield gaps for rice self-sufficiency in China. Nat. Commun. 2019;11:1725. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09447-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Hu FB. Globalization of diabetes: The role of diet, lifestyle, and genes. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:1249–1257. doi: 10.2337/dc11-0442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ma RCW, Lin X, Jia W. Causes of type 2 diabetes in China. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2:980–991. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70145-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Liu Q, et al. Relating amylose and protein contents to eating quality in 105 varieties of Japonica rice. Cereal Chem. 2020;97:1303–1312. doi: 10.1002/cche.10358. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Yin X, et al. Performance pf soft rice (Oryza sativa L.) grown in early season in China. Phyton Int. J. Exp. Bot. 2020;89:97–102. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Villegas R, et al. Prospective study of dietary carbohydrates, glycemic index, glycemic load, and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in middle-aged Chinese women. Arch. Intern. Med. 2007;167:2310–2316. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.21.2310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hu EA, Pan A, Malik V. White rice consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: Meta-analysis and systematic review. BMJ. 2012;344:e1454. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e1454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Huang M, Hu L. Low glycemic index: The next target for rice production in China? J. Integr. Agric. 2021;20:1727–1729. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63299-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.de Munter JSL, Hu FB, Spiegelman D, Franz M, van Dam RM. Whole grain, bran, and germ intake and risk of type 2 diabetes: A prospective cohort study and systematic review. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e261. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kaur KD, Sabikhi L, Singh AK. Significance of coarse cereals in health and nutrition: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014;51:1429–1441. doi: 10.1007/s13197-011-0612-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Aune D, et al. Whole grain consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all cause and cause specific mortality: Systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. BMJ. 2016;353:i2716. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Chanson-Rolle A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of human studies to support a quantitative recommendation for whole grain intake in relation to type 2 diabetes. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0131377. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Budreviciute A, et al. Management and prevention strategies for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and their risk factors. Front. Public Health. 2020;8:574111. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.574111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Saleh ASM, Wang P, Wang N, Yang L, Xiao Z. Brown rice versus white rice: Nutritional quality, potential health benefits, development of food products, and preservation technologies. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2019;18:1070–1096. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Matsue Y, Sato H, Uchimura Y. The palatability and physicochemical properties of milled rice for each grain-thickness group. Plant Prod. Sci. 2015;4:71–76. doi: 10.1626/pps.4.71. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Shi L, et al. Relationship of grain protein content with cooking and eating quality as affected by nitrogen fertilizer at late growth stage for different types of rice varieties. Chin. J. Rice Sci. 2019;33:541–552. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Juliano BO. Structure, chemistry, and function of the rice grain and its fractions. Cereal Foods World. 1992;37:772–774. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Frei M, Siddhuraju P, Becker K. Studies on the in vitro starch digestibility and the glycemic index of six different indigenous rice cultivars from the Philippines. Food Chem. 2003;83:395–402. doi: 10.1016/S0308-8146(03)00101-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Hu P, Zhao H, Duan Z, Linlin Z, Wu D. Starch digestibility and the estimated glycemic score of different types of rice differing in amylose contents. J. Cereal Sci. 2004;40:231–237. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2004.06.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Fitzgerald MA, et al. Identification of a major genetic determinant of glycemic index in rice. Rice. 2011;4:66–74. doi: 10.1007/s12284-011-9073-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Khatun A, Waters DLE, Liu L. A review of rice starch digestibility: Effect of composition and heat-moisture processing. Starch. 2019;71:1900090. doi: 10.1002/star.201900090. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Ye J, et al. Effect of endogenous proteins and lipids on starch digestibility in rice flour. Food Res. Int. 2018;106:404–409. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.01.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Li C, et al. Effects of endogenous proteins on rice digestion during small intestine (in vitro) digestion. Food Chem. 2021;344:128687. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Busse M, Siebert R. The role of consumers in food innovation processes. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2018;21:20–43. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-03-2017-0023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: A review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61:213–236. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8510(01)00214-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Suwannaporn P, Linnemann A. Rice-eating quality among consumers in different rice grain preference countries. J. Sens. Stud. 2008;23:1–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2007.00129.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.International Standard Organization (ISO). Rice—Determination of the potential milling yield from paddy and from husked rice. ISO 6646:2011.
- 29.Huang M, Jiang L, Zou Y, Zhang W. On-farm assessment of effect of low temperature at seedling stage on early-season rice quality. Field Crops Res. 2013;141:63–68. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.10.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the article.