One objective of Healthy People 20201  is to decrease by 10% the number of individuals diagnosed with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in the United States. One nutrition-based strategy to achieve this goal is to encourage individuals who are at risk of developing or who have prediabetes or type 2 diabetes to consume more fiber. An Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics position statement2  on the health implications of dietary fiber recommends that the variety of dietary fibers naturally occurring in and added to foods can promote healthy body weight, improve glycemia and insulin sensitivity, regulate digestive function, and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 20103  and Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs)4  suggest that adults ≤ 50 years of age consume 25–38 g/day of dietary fiber and that those > 50 years of age consume 21–30 g/day. However, Americans continue to fall far short of these recommendations. Data from the 2003–2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey revealed that fiber intake among individuals with type 2 diabetes was approximately 16 g/day.5  According to the baseline nutrient intake data from the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) lifestyle modification intervention trial, only 20% of participants with type 2 diabetes met dietary fiber intake goals.6 

Dietary fiber recommendations for individuals with type 2 diabetes are similar to those for the general population (DRI 14 g/1,000 kcal).4  However, research has shown that much higher intakes (44–50 g/day) are needed to improve glycemia, and many individuals may have difficulty consuming this amount on a daily basis.7  It is recommended that people with diabetes consume foods containing 25–30 g/day of fiber, with a special emphasis on soluble fiber (7–13 g/day).7 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires food manufacturing companies to list the total dietary fiber on the Nutrition Facts label of their products.8  Dietary fiber can be classified as soluble or insoluble, but the Institute of Medicine dissuades the use of these terms because physiological function—not solubility—may be important for health benefits.9  One problem associated with current food product labeling is that added or functional fibers with beneficial physiological functions such as fructans and resistant starch (RS) are not listed separately from total dietary fiber on Nutrition Facts labels.8,9 

This issue is in part related to the FDA's lack of an official definition of dietary fiber. In 2009, the Codex Alimentarius accepted a definition of dietary fiber that may influence future FDA decisions. The Codex defines dietary fiber as carbohydrate polymers with physiological benefits that are either found naturally in plants, obtained from foods by enzymatic, chemical, or physical means, or synthetically derived.10 

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 20103  offers food manufacturers the opportunity to incorporate fructans and RS, also known as fermentable fibers, into their foods. Fermentable fibers are broken down by microorganisms in the colon to produce by-products such as short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and carbon dioxide. They can be incorporated into many types of foods as a way to increase fiber content without concomitant increases in energy.11  Fructans and RS are fermentable fibers added to foods because they minimally affect taste and can improve nutritional quality.

Research shows that for individuals at risk of or with type 2 diabetes, consumption of these fibers may have diabetes-related health benefits. This article summarizes the evidence regarding the beneficial metabolic effects of the fermentable fibers fructans and RS in individuals at risk of or with type 2 diabetes. It includes practical recommendations for clinicians for incorporating these fermentable fibers into their clients' eating plans.

Fructooligosaccharides (FOS), also known as oligofructose, and inulin are known collectively as fructans.12  These indigestible polysaccharides are found naturally in chicory root, wheat, onions, leeks, garlic, asparagus, Jerusalem artichokes, and bananas.12,13  Structurally, FOS is a smaller molecule that is fermented more rapidly by microorganisms in the colon than inulin, which can cause gastrointestinal (GI) side effects.14  On average, Americans consume ≤ 3.5 g/day of fructans,15  and ingesting > 15 g/day of fructans appears to increase flatulence, bloating, and abdominal cramping.16  The bland to mildly sweet taste of fructans make them desirable to the food industry as replacements for fat and sugar.17  Fructans contribute ~ 50% less energy than digestible carbohydrates and provide ~ 1.5–2 kcal/g.12 

RS, which occurs naturally in foods such as breads, cooked cereals and pastas, vegetables, and just-ripe bananas, resists digestion in the small intestine and reaches the large intestine to become fermented by microorganisms.18,19  Four types of RS have been classified and are known as RS1, RS2, RS3, and RS4.20  The average RS intake in the United States is 4.9 g/day (2.8–7.9 g).19  RS is well tolerated in amounts up to 45 g/day from commercially prepared products.21 

One of the most common forms of RS in use is high amylose corn-starch (HAM-RS2), an ingredient available to both food manufacturers and consumers. HAM-RS2 is a bland, white substance that has a small particle size.20  It consists of 60% RS and 40% slowly digestible starch and can lower the caloric value of foods when replacing digestible carbohydrates such as flour.

In 2011, the European Food Safety Authority allowed food manufacturers to make health claims on products that partially replace digestible carbohydrates with HAM-RS2 providing at least 3.4 g/serving of RS.22  The health claims that can be made on these products are associated with the promotion of healthy blood glucose levels. As with fructans, replacing digestible carbohydrates with RS in foods also decreases the available energy. Interestingly, hyperinsulinemic individuals have been found to metabolize RS to produce 2.2 kcal/g, whereas healthy individuals average 2.8 kcal/g.23 

Several mechanisms have been proposed but not fully elucidated for the metabolic effects of fermentable fibers. For example, inulin is a soluble fiber that slows small intestine motility after consumption, which may also delay or impede carbohydrate absorption, resulting in lower postprandial glycemic and insulin responses.24  RS is insoluble and does not directly contribute to blood glucose concentrations.19 

After entering the large intestine, fructans and RS are fermented to produce the SCFAs propionate, butyrate, and acetate, which can provide many health benefits. Elevated SCFA concentrations in humans have been shown to lower circulating free fatty acids (FFAs), thus improving insulin sensitivity.25 

Studies in rats have demonstrated several physiological roles resulting from fermentable fiber consumption. Increased concentrations of SCFAs may upregulate the expression of the proglucagon gene, which synthesizes the gut peptides glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and peptide YY (PYY).26  Elevated levels of GLP-1 and PYY have been found to decrease food intake.27  In addition, GLP-1 has been shown to promote pancreatic β-cell proliferation and insulin secretion.27  Although increased concentrations of GLP-1 resulting from the consumption of fermentable fibers have occurred primarily in animal studies, this may represent one mechanism responsible for improvements in glycemia and insulin sensitivity and increases in satiety that may occur in humans.

Effects of fructans

Based on human trials, it appears unlikely that fructans significantly improve glycemia.28  However, a small study (n = 10) by Cani et al.29  found significant differences in the area under the curve for plasma glucose between healthy adults who ingested either 16 g/day of soluble fructans extracted from chicory root (treatment) or a fully digestible dextrin maltose (control). At the end of the 2-week study period, plasma glucose was lower in the treatment group after the consumption of a mixed-nutrient ad libitum breakfast.

Another study by Voss et al.30  (n = 48) evaluated the postprandial glycemic, insulinemic, and GLP-1 responses of individuals with type 2 diabetes after the consumption of three types of tube-feeding formulas using a crossover study design. The study included two diabetes-specific tube-feeding formulas: a slowly digestible carbohydrate (SDC) formula containing short-chain FOS and a diabetes-specific formula (DSF). A standard formula designed for people without diabetes served as the control.

The researchers found that both diabetes-specific formulas significantly lowered postprandial glucose responses compared to the standard formula. The SDC formula also produced significantly lower insulin and higher GLP-1 concentrations. The SDC formula had more fiber per serving (10.5 g) than the DSF (7.2 g), although both formulas had similar amounts of carbohydrate.

In contrast, a recent meta-analysis28  of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) ranging from 2 to 24 weeks' duration found that fructans lowered fasting blood glucose (FBG) in only 4 of 13 trials (31%). Of the four trials that decreased FBG, only one found significant reductions in FBG.

Despite limited data showing significant improvements in blood glucose after the consumption of fructans, elevated gut peptides involved in the regulation of satiety,29  increased SCFAs and reduced FFAs,31  and decreased body weight32  have all been found. The study by Cani et al.29  found that postprandial gut peptides GLP-1 and PYY were elevated at the end of the study period. Also, hunger sensations were blunted in the FOS group 3 hours after ingesting breakfast. A crossover trial33  in 33 healthy adults found that consuming 16 g/day of FOS for 13 days lowered energy intake by 11% and increased GLP-1 and PYY in healthy adults compared to baseline. In another RCT32  (n = 48), significant weight loss occurred after consumption of 21 g/day of FOS for 12 weeks in overweight and obese individuals. Total daily caloric intake decreased by 29% in the FOS group at week 6.

Research outcomes to date may be related to the fructan type, amount, study duration, and design. However, data appear promising that fructans (> 15 g/day) may decrease energy intake and increase satiety29,32,33  through the upregulation of gut peptides. Unfortunately, ingesting the recommended amount of fructans needed for positive metabolic outcomes may increase the presence of undesirable GI symptoms.

RS effects

Improved glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, and satiety have resulted from the consumption of RS in healthy humans20  and therefore have been hypothesized to have implications for glycemic control of individuals at risk of or with type 2 diabetes. The consumption of 60 g of RS from HAM-RS2 in 10 healthy participants resulted in significantly lower postprandial glycemia and insulin levels with improved insulin sensitivity on the following day.34  Robertson et al.35  also found significant improvements in insulin sensitivity but not glycemia in 10 healthy individuals who consumed 30 g/day of RS from HAM-RS2 for 4 weeks. Another study36  found that, although postprandial glucose concentrations in 20 healthy participants who consumed 48 g of RS from HAM-RS2 did not differ from those of control subjects, the individuals consuming the HAM-RS2 had lower energy intakes at dinner after the two test meals and throughout 24 hours.

Evidence suggests that RS may improve insulin sensitivity among individuals at risk of or with type 2 diabetes. Twenty adults with mildly elevated FBG levels who ingested 6 g of RS3 had significantly lower postprandial blood glucose and insulin concentrations at 1 and 1.5 hours compared to placebo.37  In a study by Maki et al.38  (n = 33), insulin sensitivity significantly improved after consuming 15 and 30 g/day of HAM-RS2 for 4 weeks in overweight and obese men but not in women. Two other studies39,40  (n = 15 and 20, respectively) examined the administration of 40 g/day of fiber from HAM-RS2 in insulin-resistant adults. After 8 and 12 weeks, insulin sensitivity improved by 19 and 21%, respectively.

Fructans recommendations

Emerging research suggests that incorporating fructans (16–21 g/day) into the diets of individuals at risk of or with type 2 diabetes may improve satiety and body weight. However, ingesting > 15 g/day of fructans, which is the amount needed for beneficial effects, may increase bloating, flatulence, and abdominal discomfort.

Inulin may be better tolerated than FOS because shorter fructans are fermented more rapidly than longer chains. To maximize digestive tolerance, low amounts of fiber (e.g., 5 g) from foods containing fructans should be consumed consecutively for several days, followed by moderate increases until the desired intake is achieved.

The amount of fiber contributed from fructans is not listed on the Nutrition Facts labels of packaged foods. Therefore, consumers must use the ingredient list of food products to detect added fructans. Table 1 provides examples of fructan-containing products. Inulin can now be purchased by consumers as a powder (Table 1) to be added to foods. Table 2 lists ingredients used to identify fructans in products.

RS recommendations

In healthy adults, improvements in glycemia, insulin sensitivity, and satiety, as well as decreased energy consumption, may result from consumption of 15–60 g/day of RS. It should be noted that RS is well tolerated up to 45 g/day and can be consumed with minimal digestive effects.

More research is needed to examine the role of RS in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Research has shown that 40 g of fiber from RS improves insulin sensitivity in individuals with insulin resistance. However, because a majority of RS studies that have been conducted in healthy individuals used HAM-RS2 rather than RS occurring naturally in food sources (e.g., potatoes, bananas, and wheat), generalizations to people at risk of or with type 2 diabetes are not well supported.

Increasing RS intake can be achieved by incorporating foods that naturally contain RS or foods that have added RS as an ingredient. Also, HAM-RS2, which is available for consumer purchase, can be added to casseroles, baked goods, sauces, soups, smoothies, and other foods. Up to 25% of flour can be replaced in recipes with HAM-RS2 to increase the total fiber and decrease the caloric value of foods. Table 1 offers a list of products containing RS, and Table 2 compares key points associated with fructans and RS.

Research on the role of a fiber-rich eating pattern and its association with decreased risk of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, stroke, CVD, and colon cancer has been conducted primarily in people without type 2 diabetes. Therefore, more research examining the effects of fructans and RS in individuals at risk of or with type 2 diabetes is needed. Encouraging such individuals to incorporate fiber-rich foods such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, as well as products containing fructans and RS, into their eating plans may aid in improving insulin sensitivity and glycemic health.

Table 1.

Examples of Products With Added Fructans and RS

Examples of Products With Added Fructans and RS
Examples of Products With Added Fructans and RS
Table 2.

Key Comparisons Between Fructans and RS

Key Comparisons Between Fructans and RS
Key Comparisons Between Fructans and RS

Note of disclosure: Ms. Maziarz has received research support from Ingredion, Inc., the manufacturers of Hi-maize resistant starch.

1.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
:
Healthy People 2020
. Available from http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020.
Accessed 10 July 2012
2.
American Dietetic Association
:
Health implications of dietary fiber (Position Statement)
.
J Am Diet Assoc
108
:
1716
1731
,
2008
3.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
:
Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans
,
2010
. Available from http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/PolicyDoc/PolicyDoc.pdf.
Accessed 23 July 2012
4.
Institute of Medicine
:
Dietary Reference Intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein and amino acids
,
2002
. Available from http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2002/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Energy-Carbohydrate-Fiber-Fat-Fatty-Acids-Cholesterol-Protein-and-Amino-Acids.aspx.
Accessed 4 July 2012
5.
Oza-Frank
R
,
Cheng
YJ
,
Venkat Narayan
KM
,
Gregg
EW
:
Trends in nutrient intake among adults with diabetes in the United States: 1988–2004
.
J Am Diet Assoc
109
:
1173
1178
,
2009
6.
Vitolins
MZ
,
Anderson
AM
,
Delahanty
L
,
Raynor
H
,
Miller
GD
,
Mobley
C
,
Reeves
R
,
Yamamoto
M
,
Champagne
C
,
Wing
RR
,
Mayer-Davis
E
Look AHEAD Research Group
:
Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) Trial: Baseline evaluation of selected nutrients and food group intake
.
J Am Diet Assoc
109
:
1367
1375
,
2009
7.
Franz
MJ
,
Powers
MA
,
Leontos
C
,
Holzmeister
LA
,
Kulkarni
K
,
Monk
A
,
Wedel
N
,
Gradwell
E
:
The evidence for medical nutrition therapy for type 1 and type 2 diabetes in adults
.
J Am Diet Assoc
110
:
1852
1889
,
2010
8.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
:
Food Labeling Guide
,
1994
. Available from http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuide/default.htm.
Accessed 25 July 2012
9.
Institute of Medicine Food and Nutrition Board
:
Dietary Reference Intakes: Proposed Definitions of Dietary Fiber
.
Washington, D.C.
,
National Academy of Sciences
,
2001
10.
Codex Alimentarius Commission
Food and Agriculture Organization
World Health Organization
:
Report of the 30th session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses
. Available from http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/report/710/a132_26e.pdf.
Accessed 8 December 2012
11.
Clemens
R
,
Kranz
S
,
Mobley
AR
,
Nicklas
TA
,
Raimondi
MP
,
Rodriguez
JC
,
Slavin
JL
,
Warshaw
H
:
Filling America's fiber intake gap: summary of a roundtable to probe realistic solutions with a focus on grain-based foods
.
J Nutr
142
(
Suppl. 7
):
1390S
1401S
,
2012
12.
Flamm
G
,
Glinsmann
W
,
Kritchevsky
D
,
Prosky
L
,
Roberfroid
M
:
Inulin and oligofructose as dietary fiber: a review of the evidence
.
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr
41
:
353
362
,
2001
13.
Roberfroid
MB
:
Inulin-type fructans: functional food ingredients
.
J Nutr
137
(
Suppl. 11
):
2493S
2502S
,
2007
14.
Kelly
G
:
Inulin-type prebiotics: a review (Part 2)
.
Alt Med Rev
14
:
36
55
,
2009
15.
Moshfegh
AJ
,
Friday
JE
,
Goldman
JP
,
Chug Ahiya
JK
:
Presence of inulin and oligofructose in diets of Americans
.
J Nutr
129
(
Suppl. 7
):
1407S
1411S
,
1999
16.
Grabitske
HA
,
Slavin
JL
:
Gastrointestinal effects of low-digestible carbohydrates
.
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr
49
:
327
360
,
2009
17.
Barclay
T
,
Ginic-Markovic
M
,
Cooper
P
,
Petrovsky
N
:
Inulin: a versatile polysaccharide with multiple pharmaceutical and food chemical uses
.
J Excipients Food Chem
1
:
27
50
,
2010
18.
Englyst
HN
,
Kingman
SM
,
Cummings
JH
:
Classification and measurement of nutritionally important starch fractions
.
Eur J Clin Nutr
46
(
Suppl. 2
):
33S
50S
,
1992
19.
Nugent
AP
:
Health properties of resistant starch
.
Nut Bull
30
:
27
54
,
2005
20.
Murphy
MM
,
Spungen Douglass
J
,
Birkett
A
:
Resistant starch intakes in the United States
.
J Am Diet Assoc
108
:
67
78
,
2008
21.
Grabitske
HA
,
Slavin
JL
:
Low-digestible carbohydrates in practice
.
J Am Diet Assoc
108
:
1677
1681
,
2008
22.
European Food Safety Authority Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies
:
Scientific opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to resistant starch and reduction of post-prandial glycaemic responses (ID 681), “digestive health benefits” (ID 682) and “favours a normal colon metabolism” (ID 783) pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006
.
EFSA J
9
:
2024
,
2011
. Available from http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2024.pdf.
Accessed 6 December 2012
23.
Behall
KM
,
Howe
JC
:
Resistant starch as energy
.
J Am Coll Nutr
15
:
248
254
,
1996
24.
Russo
F
,
Riezzo
G
,
Chiloiro
M
,
De Michele
G
,
Chimienti
G
,
Marconi
E
,
D'Attoma
B
,
Linsalata
M
,
Clemente
C
:
Metabolic effects of a diet with inulin-enriched pasta in healthy young volunteers
.
Curr Pharm Des
16
:
825
831
,
2010
25.
Higgins
JA
:
Resistant starch: metabolic effects and potential health benefits
.
J AOAC Int
87
:
761
768
,
2004
26.
Reimer
RA
,
McBurney
MI
:
Dietary fiber modulates intestinal proglucagon messenger ribonucleic acid and postprandial secretion of glucagon-like peptide-1 and insulin in rats
.
Endocrinology
137
:
3948
3956
,
1996
27.
Delzenne
NM
,
Cani
PD
,
Neyrinck
AM
:
Modulation of glucagon-like peptide 1 and energy metabolism by inulin and oligofructose: experimental data
.
J Nutr
137
(
Suppl. 11
):
2547S
2551S
,
2007
28.
Bonsu
NKA
,
Johnson
S
,
Mcleod
KM
:
Can dietary fructans lower serum glucose?
J Diabetes
3
:
58
66
,
2011
29.
Cani
PD
,
Lecourt
E
,
Dewulf
EM
,
Sohet
FM
,
Pachikian
BD
,
Naslain
D
,
De Backer
F
,
Neyrinck
AM
,
Delzenne
NM
:
Gut microbiota fermentation of prebiotics increases satietogenic and incretin gut peptide production with consequences for appetite sensation and glucose response after a meal
.
Am J Clin Nutr
90
:
1236
1243
,
2009
30.
Voss
AC
,
Maki
KC
,
Garvey
WT
,
Hustead
DS
,
Alish
C
,
Fix
B
,
Mustad
VA
:
Effect of two carbohydrate-modified tube-feeding formulas on metabolic responses in patients with type 2 diabetes
.
Nutrition
24
:
990
997
,
2008
31.
Tarini
J
,
Wolever
TMS
:
The fermentable fibre inulin increases postprandial serum short-chain fatty acids and reduces free-fatty acids and ghrelin in healthy subjects
.
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab
35
:
9
16
,
2010
32.
Parenell
JA
,
Reimer
RA
:
Weight loss during oligofructose supplementation is associated with decreased ghrelin and increased peptide YY in overweight and obese adults
.
Am J Clin Nutr
89
:
1751
1759
,
2009
33.
Verhoef
SPM
,
Meyer
D
,
Westerterp
KR
:
Effects of oligofructose on appetite profile, glucagon-like peptide 1 and peptide YY3-36 concentrations and energy intake
.
Br J Nutr
106
:
1757
1762
,
2011
34.
Robertson
MD
,
Currie
JM
,
Morgan
LM
,
Jewell
DP
,
Frayn
KN
:
Prior short-term consumption of resistant starch enhances postprandial insulin sensitivity in healthy subjects
.
Diabetologia
46
:
659
665
,
2003
35.
Robertson
MD
,
Bickerton
AS
,
Dennis
AL
,
Vidal
H
,
Frayn
KN
:
Insulin-sensitizing effects of dietary resistant starch and effects on skeletal muscle and adipose tissue metabolism
.
Am J Clin Nutr
82
:
559
567
,
2005
36.
Bodinham
CL
,
Frost
GS
,
Robertson
MD
:
Acute ingestion of resistant starch reduces food intake in healthy adults
.
Br J Nutr
103
:
917
922
,
2010
37.
Yamada
Y
,
Hosoya
S
,
Nishimura
S
,
Tanaka
T
,
Kajimoto
Y
,
Nishimura
A
,
Kajimoto
O
:
Effect of bread containing resistant starch on postprandial blood glucose levels in humans
.
Biosci Biotechnol Biochem
69
:
559
566
,
2005
38.
Maki
KC
,
Pelkman
CL
,
Finocchiaro
ET
,
Kelley
KM
,
Lawless
AL
,
Schild
AL
,
Rains
TM
:
Resistant starch from high-amylose maize increases insulin sensitivity in overweight and obese men
.
J Nutr
142
:
717
723
,
2012
39.
Robertson
MD
,
Wright
JW
,
Loizon
E
,
Debard
C
,
Vidal
H
,
Shojaee-Moradie
F
,
Fussell-Jones
D
,
Umpleby
AM
:
Insulin-sensitising effects on muscle and adipose tissue after dietary fiber intake in men and women with metabolic syndrome
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab.
Electronically published ahead of print on 28 June 2012 (DOI: 10.1210/jc.2012-1513)
40.
Johnston
KL
,
Thomas
EL
,
Bell
JD
,
Frost
GS
,
Robertson
MD
:
Resistant starch improves insulin sensitivity in metabolic syndrome
.
Diabet Med
27
:
391
397
,
2010