formulation and development of millet based sweet balls using

PSGCAS Search: A Journal of Science and TechnologyVolume: 6 No. : 1 ISSN: 2349 – 5456 1

Formulation and Development of Millet based Sweet balls using Different

types of Sugars

Priyanka P. and Kanjana K.

PSG College of Arts & Science, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Sugar is an essential and mostly commonly used ingredient in the Indian cuisines, mostly

all the people in India consumes sugar at least once in their daily meals. There are different

varieties of sugar available in our country. Millets are rich in dietary fiber, iron, calcium, and B

vitamins. Fiber in millets releases sugar slowly in the blood and also diminish the glucose

absorption hence combination of millets with sugar reduces the rise in blood glucose levels in the

body after consumption of sweets. India being the diabetic capital, it is not necessary to avoid all

the sugars, comparing glycemic index and load of the commonly available sugars helps in

sorting out the best sugar. The research to determine the glycemic index of millet based sweets

incorporated with a carbohydrate rich food (sugars) and fiber rich food (millet) was performed

by developing the sweets by incorporating Finger millet flours, Ground nut flour using six

different sugars at three different levels of incorporation and performing blood glucose test. The

study revealed that the glycemic index of the sweets made out of different varieties of sugars is

within 73-88. The sweets made out of Coconut Palm sugar obtained an intermediate glycemic

index when compared with all the other sweets. The glycemic load of the sweets made out of

different varieties of sugars is within 17 -22. Hence comparing the glycemic response of the

sugars, coconut palm sugar was found to be the best among all the other types of sugars. By

concluding, the findings from the present study have important implications for the use of the GI

concept worldwide. The glycemic response of the sugars represents another mechanism for

increased diabetes susceptibility among Indians. Moreover, in a country of high diabetes

prevalence, consideration of GI dietary therapy is likely to be beneficial to help curb the rising

incidence of metabolic syndrome.

Key words: Varieties of Sugars, Millets, Glycemic Index, Glycemic load.

INTRODUCTION

India is the largest consumer and the

second largest producer of sugar in the world.

Sugar industry is the second largest organized

sector industry in the country. Among the

sugar yielding crops like sugarcane, sugar

beet, palms and sorghum, sugarcane is the

most important 1.

Sugars are an important component of

food in our country, providing about 20 % of

total energy consumed and nearly half of the

total carbohydrate. Sugars provide nutrients,

antioxidants and minerals. In India Sugars are

extracted from sugarcane, Palmyra palm,

coconut, etc which have unique nutritional

benefits in it 2.

Sugars are integral part of food in

Indian cuisine; it takes a major role in

enhancing the taste of all the food items. In a

single day menu sugar is mostly used in all the


PSGCAS Search: A Journal of Science and TechnologyVolume 6: No. : 1 ISSN: 2349 – 5456 2

three meals (Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner).

Sweets are consumed by all people

irrespective of their age.Millets are rich in

dietary fiber, iron, calcium, and B vitamins.

Fiber in millets releases sugar slowly in the

blood and also diminish the glucose

absorption hence combination of millets with

sugar reduces the rise in blood glucose levels

in the body after consumption of sweets.

India being the diabetic capital, it is

not necessary to avoid all the sugars,

comparing glycemic index and load of the

commonly available sugars helps in sorting

out the best sugar 3

.

Studies on Glycemic index and

Glycemic load of millet based sweets

incorporated with different types of sugars

may be the better choice of investigation to

probe more avenues for regulation of blood

sugar level. Hence the effort is taken to

develop finger millet based sweet using

variety of sugar available in the market and

assess for their organoleptic attributes.

Objectives:

� To prepare sweets incorporating selected

varieties of sugar

� To sensory evaluate the developed

standardized sweets

� To determine the blood glucose levels over

fasting and postprandial in normal healthy

persons before and after supplementation

with the developed sweets

� To compare the glycemic index and glycemic

load of the sugars.

METHODOLOGY

Phase I: Formulation and Development of

Sweets

Selection of Millets & Sugars

Finger millet and Sugar samples

namely White sugar, Cane sugar, Cane

Jaggery, Palmyra palm Jaggery, Palmyra palm

rock sugar, Coconut palm sugar, and Ground

nuts were purchased from the local market of

Tiruppur, Coimbatore district. All the food

samples were individually checked for quality.

Formulation of Mixtures

Six sweet products were developed by

using constant amount of Finger millet flours

(15g), Ground nut flour (5g) each sweetened

with one of the mentioned six types of sugar

at three different levels (5%, 10% and 15%)

incorporating 2ml of ghee each so 18 samples

were developed finally (Table 1).

Development of Sweets

i) Sweet balls were developed using the

formulated mixtures by following the under

mentioned steps.

ii) ii) The finger millets were washed with

water and then dried in sunlight, roasted and

ground into fine flour.

Formulation and Development of Millet based Sweet balls using Different types of Sugars


Table 1 Formulated Sweet millet mixtures

S.No MIXTURE INGREDIENTS

1 1A Ragi flour(15g)+groundnut flour(5g)+white sugar(10g)+ghee(2mL)

1B Ragi flour(15g)+groundnut flour(5g)+white sugar(15g)+ghee(2mL)

1C Ragi flour(15g)+groundnut flour(5g)+white sugar(20g)+ghee(2mL)

2 2A Ragi flour(15g)+groundnut flour(5g)+cane sugar(10g)+ghee(2mL)

2B Ragi flour(15g)+groundnut flour(5g)+cane sugar(15g)+ghee(2mL)

2C Ragi flour(15g)+groundnut flour(5g)+cane sugar(20g)+ghee(2mL)

3 3A Ragi flour(15g)+groundnut flour(5g)+cane Jaggery(10g)+ghee(2mL)

3B Ragi flour(15g)+groundnut flour(5g)+cane Jaggery(15g)+ghee(2mL)

3C Ragi flour(15g)+groundnut flour(5g)+cane Jaggery(20g)+ghee(2mL)

4 4A Ragi flour(15g)+Groundnut flour(5g)+Palmyra Palm Jaggery(10g)+Ghee(2mL)

4B Ragi flour(15g)+Groundnut flour(5g)+Palmyra Palm Jaggery(15g)+Ghee(2mL)

4C Ragi flour(15g)+Groundnut flour(5g)+Palmyra Palm Jaggery(20g)+Ghee(2mL)

5

5A Ragi flour(15g)+Groundnut flour(5g)+Palmyra Palm Rock Sugar(10g)+Ghee(2mL)

5B Ragi flour(15g)+Groundnut flour(5g)+Palmyra Palm Rock Sugar(15g)+Ghee(2mL)

5C Ragi flour(15g)+Groundnut flour(5g)+Palmyra Palm Rock Sugar(20g)+Ghee(2mL)

6 6A Ragi flour(15g)+Groundnut flour(5g)+Coconut Palm Sugar(10g)+Ghee(2mL)

6B Ragi flour(15g)+Groundnut flour(5g)+Coconut Palm Sugar(15g)+Ghee(2mL)

6C Ragi flour(15g)+Groundnut flour(5g)+Coconut Palm Sugar(20g)+Ghee(2mL)

iii) Groundnuts were roasted, the outer red

skin was removed and powdered coarsely.

iv) To the Ragi flour, groundnut powder,

desired type of sugar and ghee were added and

iv) Mixed thoroughly and made into balls /

laddus (sweet balls). The selected mixture was

independently incorporated in the preparation

of sweets. Selected mixtures were weighed

accurately and mixed together; the evenly

mixed mixture was made to laddu by adding

2Ml of ghee.

Nutritive Value of Developed Sweet Balls

Nutritive value of the formulated sweet

was calculated referring the Nutritive Value of

Indian Foods authored by Gopalan et al.,

20004.

Determination of Nominal Serve Size

A nominal serving size of the food

based on the amount carbohydrate was

selected. Sweet ball containing 15 grams of

sugar was maintained constant and the other

ingredients were adjusted according to the



carbohydrate content so that the total

carbohydrate of each sweet ball was 25g as

the standard food to which the developed

sweet to be compared and tested was 25g of

glucose.

Sensory Evaluation of Developed Sweet

Balls

All the six types of developed sweets

were evaluated by a semi-trained panel of ten

judges. for the appearance, colour, taste,

texture, flavor, aroma, and overall

acceptability on a 9-point hedonic scale, with

0 being the minimum and 9 the maximum

score for the sweets (Sorensen et al., 2003).

Phase II: Estimation of Glycemic Index and

Glycemic Load (Illustration 1):

Selection of Sample

Twenty healthy volunteers,

belonging to the age group of 20-40 years (10

Female) and 10 Male were selected by

Convenience sampling method. The

participants were healthy and did not consume

any medications during the course of study.

Determination of Test Time

The participants were asked to

assemble on a fixed day with empty stomach

in the early morning. The fasting blood

glucose levels of the volunteers were

determined using Glucometer and test strips.

Twenty five grams of glucose was diluted in

150 ml of water and given to them for

drinking. The blood glucose levels at fasting

state and there after followed by

administration of glucose, at 30, 60, 90 and

120 minutes were determined and recorded.

With the same volunteers, the study was

carried out on the following day. The fasting

blood glucose levels were recorded. Instead of

glucose, the previously fixed portion of

selected variety of sweets containing 25 grams

of carbohydrate was fed. The blood glucose

levels were also determined at 30, 60, 90 and

120 minutes as mentioned above and

recorded.

Estimation of Glycemic Index

Glycemic index is defined as the

incremental effect of carbohydrate in a food

on blood glucose, as a percentage of the effect

of an equal weight of glucose. The concept of

the glycemic index was introduced as a mean

to quantify the blood glucose response to an

ingested quantity of carbohydrate in a food as

compared to the response using a standard

reference food 5.

A food with a higher GI will cause a

higher rise in blood glucose levels than a food

with a lower GI, if the carbohydrate content is

equal. Different factors may affect GI

including characteristics of the food itself

(e.g., processing, fiber content, resistant starch

content), use of total carbohydrate rather than

available carbohydrate determine food sample



size, and differences in blood sampling

procedures and timing of blood draws 6.

Estimation of Glycemic Load

The glycemic load (GL) corresponds to

the product of each food item's GI and the

amount of carbohydrate in a serving (g)

divided by 100. This concept has been

validated using isolated carbohydrate foods. It

has been shown that by adjusting the amount

of carbohydrate foods in order to obtain

identical GL values, a similar blood glucose

response is achieved. In addition, stepwise

increases in GL produced proportional

increases in glycemia. When mixed meals

containing carbohydrate foods of contrasting

glycemic index are consumed, it is known that

the difference in postprandial blood glucose

response is maintained 7.

The incremental area under the blood

glucose curve (IAUC) was calculated

geometrically,ignoring areas below the fasting

value.

Glycemic index6

(GI; carbohydrate-

based; GI carb)

GI: incremental area under the blood glucose response curve (IAUC) as a

result of consuming food containing 50 g of available carbohydrate, as a

Percentage of the response to 50 g glucose.

GI carb = IAUC in response to food containing 50 g available

carbohydrate

IAUC in response to 50 g glucose x 100

Glycemic load7

(GL)

GL = ∑ foods (GI * carbohydrate/portion *no: of portions per d *duration of

study) originally based on a bread-referenced GI.

Contracting GL to a single portion of a single food and basing it on a

glucose-referenced GI provides an estimate of GGE

Glycemic index values are grouped

into three categories namely High GI (70 or

higher), Intermediate GI (56-69) and Low GI

(0-55). Glycemic load of a serving of food

can be calculated as its carbohydrate content

measured in grams (g), multiplied by the

food's GI, and divided by 100.

In general, a serving of food with

a glycemic load of 1-10 is considered to have

a low glycemic load, 11-19 is a

medium glycemic load, and 20 or higher is

a high glycemic load.

Collection of Blood

A finger-poking (lancing) device is

used to get the drop of blood. The hands were

advised to be washed with warm water (to

increase blood flow and to make sure they

are clean). Any trace of sugar on the finger

may give a false elevated reading. Wiping

with alcohol may cause any trace of alcohol

to be left on the skin that may interfere with

the chemical reaction for the blood sugar, so

the finger is air dried before doing the blood

sugar check.



Glucose Tolerance Test (GTT )

� Finger-prick capillary blood samples were

taken at 0 min (fasting), 15, 30, 60, 90 and

120 min after the meal was commenced.

Hands were placed in a 45" water bath for at

least 2 min before puncturing with an Auto

let device using Autoclix lancets. Glucose

was assayed using the glucose hexokinase 8.

� Capillary blood samples were taken using a

lancet. Blood glucose concentration was

measured. The product was consumed over a

period of 15 min and capillary blood samples

were taken at 30, 60, 90 and 120 min; after

the start time. Blood glucose response was

measured over 2–3 h after consumption of a

reference food or a test food. (Bernard J.

Venn et al.,2006)

Washout Period

A two day gap was maintained

between each of the test food in order to

ensure that one test food doesn’t interact with

the other test food. The washout period

adopted in many studies is usually two or

more days (Mettler et al., 2007, 2008).

Table 2 Phase-II Determination of Blood Glucose Levels

TEST DAY 1 Glucose � Fasting blood sugar level

� Administration of sweets

� After 30 min of intake




TEST DAY 2 Sweet with white sugar

TEST DAY 3 Sweet with sugarcane brown sugar

TEST DAY 4 Sweet with Cane jaggery

TEST DAY 5 Sweet with palmyra palm rock sugar

TEST DAY 6 Sweet with palmyra palm jaggery

TEST DAY 7 Sweet with cocount palm jaggery

*Two days gap of wash out period was maintained in between each test day

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Sensory Evaluation of Developed Sweets

Sensory evaluation deals with

analyzing and interpreting the qualities of

food as they are perceived by the sense of

appearance, colour, aroma, texture, taste,

flavour,overall acceptibility. Sensory

evaluation is designed to reflect common

prefernce and to maintain the quality of food

at a given standard condition. All the sweets

prepared by incorporated six different types of

sugars such as white sugar, cane sugar, cane

jaggery, palmyra palm jagegery, palmyra palm

rock sugar, coconut palm sugar, in a

proporotion of three variants such as 10 gm,

15 gm, 20 gm of each sugar were tasted by a

panel of 10 members.



Table: 1 Organoleptic Evaluation of the Developed Sweets

Sweets prepared with the

sugar type

Factors Mean Score

10 gram 15 gram 20 gram

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

White sugar

Appearance 7.9 79 8.8 88 6.4 64

Colour 7.7 77 8.8 88 7.3 73

Aroma 6.1 61 8.9 89 7.5 75

Texture 7.7 77 8.8 88 7.8 78

Taste 8.7 87 8.9 89 6.4 64

Flavour 7.9 79 8.9 89 6.6 66

Overall acceptability 7 70 8.9 89 7.3 73

Total Score 7.5 75 8.86 88 7.04 70

Cane sugar

Appearance 8.6 86 8.7 87 8.4 84

Colour 8.6 86 8.8 88 8.4 84

Aroma 8.4 84 8.6 86 8.5 85

Texture 8.7 87 8.8 88 8.5 85

Taste 8.8 88 8.8 88 8.6 86

Flavour 8.9 89 8.7 87 8.5 85

Overall acceptability 7.9 79 8.8 88 8.1 81

Total Score 8.74 87 8.43 84 7.69 77

Cane jaggery

Appearance 7.9 79 8.4 84 8.7 87

Colour 7.7 77 8.4 84 8.8 88

Aroma 6.3 63 8.5 85 8.6 86

Texture 8.3 83 8.5 85 8.8 88

Taste 8.7 87 7.7 77 8.8 88

Flavour 7.9 79 7.6 76 8.7 87

Overall acceptability 7 70 8.1 81 8.8 88

Total Score 7.69 76 8.17 82 8.74 87

Palmyra

Palm

Jaggery

Appearance 8.5 85 8.8 88 8.4 84

Colour 8.4 84 8.7 87 8.1 81

Aroma 8.1 81 8.5 85 8.4 84

Texture 7.7 77 8.6 86 8.6 86

Taste 8.2 82 8.7 87 7.9 79

Flavour 8.3 83 8.8 88 8.3 83


Total Score 8.13 81 8.7 87 8.23 82

Palmyra Palm Rock

Sugar

Appearance 8.7 87 8.7 87 8.4 84

Colour 8.6 86 8.8 88 8 80

Aroma 8.4 84 8.7 87 8.3 83

Texture 8.5 85 8.5 85 8.4 84

Taste 8.6 86 8.7 87 8.1 81

Flavour 8.4 84 8.6 86 8.3 83


Total Score 8.47 85 8.66 86 8.18 81

Coconut Palm Sugar

Appearance 8.7 87 8.8 88 8.4 84

Colour 8.6 86 8.8 88 8.1 81

Aroma 8.4 84 8.9 89 8.4 84

Texture 8.5 85 8.8 88 8.6 86

Taste 8.6 86 8.9 89 8.4 84

Flavour 8.4 84 8.9 89 8.3 83


Total Score 8.47 85 8.86 89 8.34 83



Fig: 2 Organoleptic evaluation of the sweets

The sensory attributes of the sweets

namely appearance, colour, aroma, texture,

taste, flavour, overall acceptibility were

alloted a maximum of 9 rank each. The

scoring was 9 (like extremely), 8 (like very

much), 7 (like moderatly) , 6 (like slightly), 5

(neither like nor disklike), 4 (dislike slightly),

3 (dislike moderately), 2 (dislike very much)

and 1 (dislike extremely).

The expert panel evaluated the

developed millet based sweets for their

attributes namely appearance, colour, aroma,

texture, taste, flavour and overall

acceptibility. The findings are depicted in

Table 1 and Fig.2 exhibiting the Overall

ranking score for the millet based sweets

incorporated with different types of sugars.

Among the three different proportion of each

sweets i.e. 10gram, 15gram, 20 gram, all the

factors were marked high for the 15gram

sweet proportions except for the sweet made

out of cane sugar and cane jaggery. The

sweets made out of 15 gram of coconut palm

sugar and white sugar gained the highest

WHITE

SUGAR

CANE

SUGAR

CANE

JAGGERY

PALMYRA

PALM

JAGGERY

PALMYRA

PALM ROCK

SUGAR

COCONUT

PALM

SUGAR

10 gram 7.5 8.74 7.69 8.13 8.47 8.47

15 gram 8.86 8.43 8.17 8.7 8.66 8.86

20 gram 7.04 7.69 8.74 8.23 8.18 8.34

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

sca

le

ORGANOLEPTIC EVALUATION OF DEVELOPED SWEETS



mean overall score (8.86) followed by

palmyra palm jaggery (8.7) and palmyra

palm rock sugar (8.66).

Though sweet made out of white

sugar with 15 grams proportion was ranked

high, less mean score was fetched by the rest

of the 10 gram and 20 gram proportion when

compared to the sweets prepared out of all

the other selected sugar and jaggery. Coconut

palm sugar sweet with all the selected

proportions gained the highest mean score.

Hence the sweet made out 15gram

obtained the highest ranking scored that is

regarded as the best sensory evaluated sweet

and selected for further study of experimental

purpose.

Sugar and white sugar gained the

highest mean overall score (8.86) followed

by palmyra palm jaggery (8.7) and palmyra

palm rock sugar (8.66). Though sweet made

out of white sugar with 15 grams proportion

was ranked high, less mean score was fetched

by the rest of the 10 gram and 20 gram

proportion when compared to the sweets

prepared out of all the other selected sugar

and jaggery. Coconut palm sugar sweet with

all the selected proportions gained the highest

mean score.

Hence the sweet made out 15gram

obtained the highest ranking scored that is

regarded as the best sensory evaluated sweet

and selected for further study of experimental

purpose.

Glucose Tolerance Test

Blood glucose response after

consumption of different types of sweets

observed at different time intervals of 30

minutes, 60 minutes, 90 minutes and 120

minutes is depicted in Table 3 and Figures 3

&4.

Table 3 Blood Glucose Response for Glucose and Sweets with Different Types 0f Sugar

Sugar (mg/dl) Fasting 30mins 60mins 90mins 120mins

Glucose 87.95±21.98 154.79±50.081 116.53±34.747 91.737±25.871 80.421±16.375

White sugar 89.42±8.971 107.26±17.757 102.74±12.101 97.105±13.102 82.3684±20.903

Cane sugar 87.26±16.536 109.16±15.994 108.00±11.884 93.211±6.908 90.526±6.678

Cane jaggery 96.16±12.006 103.05±12.331 100.63±9.154 90.6842±7.476 91.7895±5.893

Palmyra palm

jaggery

88.47±21.449 97.79±24.798 96.63±21.449 91.053±24.708 89.105±30.022

Palmyra palm

rock sugar

90.947±7.799 113.47±8.765 96.63±12.815 95.895±13.376 88.790±10.696

Coconut palm

sugar

89.263±12.444 100.79±20.390 101.11±11.9112 93.368±17.503 86.263±10.450



Fig: 4 Blood Glucose Response for Glucose and Sweet developed with varieties of Sugar

Blood Sugar levels between Experimental Groups at Different Time intervals

0

50

100

150

200

Fa

stin

g

30

min

s

60

min

s

90

min

s

12

0m

insblo

og

glu

cose

mg

/dl)

4a Glucose & White sugar

Glucose

White

sugar0

50

100

150

200

Fa

stin

g

30

min

s

60

min

s

90

min

s

12

0m

ins

Blo

od

glu

cose

(mg

ldl)

4b Glucose and Cane sugar

Glucose

Cane sugar

0

50

100

150

200

Fa

stin

g

30

min

s

60

min

s

90

min

s

12

0m

ins

blo

od

glu

cose

(mg

/dl)

4c Glucose and Cane jaggery

Glucose

Cane

Jaggery 0

50

100

150

200

Fa

stin

g

30

min

s

60

min

s

90

min

s

12

0m

ins

Blo

od

glu

cose

(mg

/dl)

4d Glucose &P.P.Jaggery

Glucose

Palmyra

palm

jaggery

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Fa

stin

g

30

min

s

60

min

s

90

min

s

12

0m

ins

Blo

od

glu

cose

(mg

/dl)

4e Glucose & P.P.R.sugar

Glucose

Palmyra

palm rock

sugar 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Fa

stin

g

30

min

s

60

min

s

90

min

s

12

0m

ins

Blo

od

glu

cose

(m

g/d

l)

4f Glucose &Coconut Palm sugar

Glucose

Coconut

palm sugar



Fig: 3 Blood Glucose Response for Sweets with Different Types of Sugar

Mean difference on Blood Sugar

levels between experimental Groups at

fasting and post prandial time intervals of 30

minutes, 60 minutes, 90 minutes and 120

minutes were analysed. Table 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8

and Figures 5, 6 & 7 depict the mean

difference between the fasting groups of all

the test foods, where the fasting levels

among the study subjects were not

significantly different. There exists a

positive significant difference among the

30mins postprandial blood glucose response

of the standard food compared with all the

test foods such as sweets prepared out of

white sugar, cane sugar, cane jaggery,

palmyra palm jaggery, palmyra palm rock

sugar and coconut palm sugar. There is no

significant difference found between the

reference food group and the test food group

at 30 minutes, 60minutes, 90 minutes and

120 minutes of postprandial intervention of

the test food. Fig. 5, 6 and 7 depict the mean

blood sugar levels observed at different time

intervals.

Table: 4 Mean Difference on FBS between Experimental Groups

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Glucose White

sugar

Cane

sugar

Cane

jaggery

Palmyra

palm

jaggery

Palmyra

palm rock

sugar

Coconut

palm

sugar

Fasting

30mins

60mins

90mins

120mins

Sugars Mean Std.

Deviat

ion

Std. Error

Mean

‘t’ value Significance

A Glucose 87.947 21.981 5.043 (A)&(B) 0.361 0.722

B White sugar 89.421 8.971 2.058

C Cane sugar 87.263 16.536 3.794 (A)&(C) 0.146 0.886

D Cane jaggery 96.158 12.006 2.754 (A)&(D) 1.670 0.112

E Palmyra palm jaggery 88.474 21.449 4.921 (A)&(E) 0.154 0.879

F Palmyra palm rock sugar 90.947 7.799 1.789 (A)&(F) 0.661 0.517

G Coconut palm sugar 89.263 12.444 2.855 (A)&(G) 0.231 0.820



Table: 5 Mean Difference on PPBS (30 minutes) Between Experimental Groups



Table: 8 Mean difference on PPBS (120 minutes) Between Experimental Groups

Sweet made with Mean Std.

Deviat

ion

Std. Error

Mean

‘t’ value Significance

A Glucose 154.79 50.080 11.489 (A)&(B) 4.580** 0.000

B White sugar 107.26 17.757 4.073

C Cane sugar 109.16 15.993 3.669 (A)&(C) 4.913** 0.000

D Cane jaggery 103.05 12.331 2.829 (A)&(D) 4.272** 0.000

E Palmyra palm jaggery 97.80 24.798 5.689 (A)&(E) 4.198** 0.001

F Palmyra palm rock sugar 113.47 8.765 2.010 (A)&(F) 3.425** 0.003

G Coconut palm sugar 100.79 20.390 4.678 (A)&(G) 4.437** 0.000

Sweet made with Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean ‘t’ value Significance

A Glucose 116.53 34.747 7.972 (A)&(B) 1.598 0.127

B White sugar 102.737 12.101 2.776

C Cane sugar 108.000 11.884 2.726 (A)&(C) 1.097 0.287

D Cane jaggery 100.63 9.154 2.100 (A)&(D) 2.007 0.060





A Glucose 91.737 25.871 5.935 (A)&(B) 0.754 0.461

B White sugar 97.105 13.102 3.006

C Cane sugar 93.211 6.908 1.583 (A)&(C) 0.244 0.810

D Cane jaggery 90.684 7.476 1.715 (A)&(D) 0.157 0.877





A Glucose 80.421 16.375 3.757 (A)&(B) 0.418 0.681

B White sugar 82.368 20.903 4.795

C Cane sugar 90.526 6.678 1.532 (A)&(C) 2.314* 0.033

D Cane jaggery 91.789 5.893 1.352 (A)&(D) 2.929** 0.009





PSGCAS Search: A Journal of Science and Technology

Fig: 5 Mean FBS and PPBS (30 minutes)

Fig: 6 Mean PPBS (90 minutes)

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

FBS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

PPBS-60mins


Science and TechnologyVolume: 6 No. : 1 ISSN: 2349 – 5456

PPBS (30 minutes) between Standard and Experimental

0 minutes) between Standard and Experimental Groups

Fasting

020406080

100120140160180

PPBS-30MINS

60mins

60mins

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

PPBS-90mins


13

Experimental Groups

Experimental Groups

30MINS

Series 1

90mins

90mins



Fig: 7 Mean PPBS (120 minutes) between Standard and Experimental Groups

Determination of Glycemic Index

Sweets incorporated with different types of

sugars exhibited a high glycemic response

by both the genders. However a marked

reduction in score (70.66) for the coconut

palm sugar of both male and female subjects

which is also regarded as the high glycemic

score was recorded; but still among all the

varieties of sugars tested, the response was

comparatively found to be less.

Table: 9 Determination of Glycemic Index Response of the Sweets in the Study Subjects

Sweet Glycemic index

(Male)

Glycemic index

(Female)

Glycemic index

Total

Sweet 1- White sugar 85.910 87.991 86.95

Sweet 2-Cane sugar 88.196 87.7 87.95

Sweet 3-Cane jaggery 84.690 85.79 85.24

Sweet 4- Palmyra Palm jaggery 78.76 82.61 80.69

Sweet 5- Palmyra Palm rock sugar 88.617 86.346 87.48

Sweet 6- Coconut palm sugar 76.547 70.66 73.60

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

G120min

(A)

WS120min

B)

CS120min

(C)

Cj 120min

(D)

Ppj 120min

(E)

PPRS

120min (F)

CPS

120min (G)

PPBS-120minutes

Series 1



Fig: 8 Determination of Glycemic Index

The glycemic index of the millet based

sweets incorporated with different types of

sugars was illustrated in Fig. 8, where all the

sweets showed a high glycemic response

among both the genders, and

reduction in score (70.66) for

palm sugar of the female subjects though

regarded as the high glycemic score but still

among all the varieties of sugars tested

was compared to be less.

Determination of Glycemic Load

Table 10 and Fig. 9

glycemic load of the millet based sweets

incorporated with different types of sugars,

where all the sweets possessed a high

glycemic load response of the subjects.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

White

sugar

Male 85.91

Female 87.991

Total 86.95

Gly

cem

ic I

nd

ex

Glycemic Index of the Developed Sweets


Science and TechnologyVolume: 6 No. : 1 ISSN: 2349 – 5456

Determination of Glycemic Index (GI) Response of the Sweets in the Study

Participants

The glycemic index of the millet based

sweets incorporated with different types of

, where all the

a high glycemic response

g both the genders, and a marked

for the coconut

gar of the female subjects though

regarded as the high glycemic score but still

varieties of sugars tested, this

f Glycemic Load:

Table 10 and Fig. 9 depict the

of the millet based sweets

with different types of sugars,

where all the sweets possessed a high

glycemic load response of the subjects.

Marked reduced glycemic load for Coconut

palm sugar (GL=18.395) recorded was

regarded as intermediate glycemic load when

compared to the normal level of 1

among all the varieties of sugars tested, test

food with coconut palm sugar was assessed to

be the least glycemic load influencing food.

Figure 9 depicts the glycemic load

the millet based sweets incorporated

different types of sugars, where all the sweets

possessed high glycemic load response of the

subjects. Figure 9 depicts the glycemic

the millet based sweets incorporated



subjects.

Cane

sugar

Cane

jaggery

Palmyra

Palm

jaggery

Palmyra

Palm

rock

sugar

Coconut

palm

sugar

88.196 84.69 78.76 88.617 76.547

87.7 85.79 82.61 86.346 70.66

87.95 85.24 80.69 87.48 73.6



15

in the Study

reduced glycemic load for Coconut

palm sugar (GL=18.395) recorded was

regarded as intermediate glycemic load when

red to the normal level of 1-10; but still

among all the varieties of sugars tested, test

food with coconut palm sugar was assessed to

the least glycemic load influencing food.

the glycemic load of

the millet based sweets incorporated with



the glycemic load of

the millet based sweets incorporated with



Coconut

palm

76.547



Table: 10 Determination of glycemic load of the developed sweets in the study

Sweet

Sweet 1- White sugar

Sweet 2-Cane sugar

Sweet 3-Cane jaggery

Sweet 4- Palmyra Palm jaggery

Sweet 5- Palmyra Palm rock sugar

Sweet 6- Coconut palm sugar

Fig: 9 Determination of glycemic load of the developed sweets in the study subjects

Marked reduced glycemic load for

coconut palm sugar (GL=18.395

0

5

10

15

20

25

White

sugar

Male 21.47

Female 21.99

Total 21.73

Gly

cem

ic L

oa

d

Glycemic Load of the Developed Sweets


PSGCAS Search: A Journal of Science and TechnologyVolume 6: No. : 1 ISSN: 2349 – 5456

10 Determination of glycemic load of the developed sweets in the study

Subjects

CHO

(g)

Glycemic Load (GL)

Male Female

25 21.47 21.99

25 22.04 21.92

25 21.17 21.44

25 22.15 20.65

rock sugar 25 22.15 21.58

25 19.13 17.66

Determination of glycemic load of the developed sweets in the study subjects

glycemic load for

(GL=18.395) was

recorded when tested among the subjects.

Though regarded as intermediate glycemic

Cane

sugar

Cane

jaggery

Palmyra

Palm

jaggery

Palmyra

Palm rock

sugar

Coconut

palm

sugar

22.04 21.17 22.15 22.15 19.13

21.92 21.44 20.65 21.58 17.66

21.98 21.305 21.4 21.865 18.395


16

10 Determination of glycemic load of the developed sweets in the study

Glycemic Load (GL)

Female Total

21.99 21.73

21.92 21.98

21.44 21.305

20.65 21.4

21.58 21.865

17.66 18.395

Determination of glycemic load of the developed sweets in the study subjects

recorded when tested among the subjects.

Though regarded as intermediate glycemic

Coconut

palm

sugar

19.13

17.66

18.395




load (11-19) when compared to the normal

level of 1-10, but still among all the varieties

of sugars tested, test food with coconut palm

sugar was assessed to be the least glycemic

load influencing food. Several prospective

observational studies have shown that the

chronic consumption of a diet with a high

glycemic load (GI x dietary carbohydrate

content) is independently associated with an

increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes,

cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers.-

miller

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that the glycemic

index of the sweets made out of different

varieties of sugars is within 73-88. The sweets

made out of Coconut Palm sugar obtained an

intermediate GI when compared with all the

other sweets. The glycemic load of the sweets

made out of different varieties of sugars is

within 17 -22. Coconut palm sugar sweet was

found to be the best among all the other types

of sweets represented intermediate glycemic

load. By concluding, the findings from the

present study have important implications for

the use of the GI concept worldwide. The

glycemic response of the sugars represents

another mechanism for increased diabetes

susceptibility among Indians. Moreover, in a

country of high diabetes prevalence,

consideration of GI dietary therapy is likely to

be beneficial to help curb the rising incidence

of metabolic syndrome.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Jagannadha Rao PVK., Madhusweta Das &

Das SK., 2007. Jaggery – a Traditional

Indian Sweetener. Indian Journal of

Traditional Knowledge. Vol.6 (1): 95-102.

2. Mogea J., Seibert B., Smits W, 1991.

Multipurpose palms: the sugar palm.

Arenga pinnata (Wurmb) Merr.).

Agroforestry Systems. 13: 111 – 129.

3. Shobana S, Usha Kumari SR, Malleshi NG,

Ali SZ., 2007. Glycemic response of rice,

wheat and finger millet based diabetic food

formulations in normoglycemic subjects.

Int J Food Sci Nutr 58 (5):363–372.

4. Gopalan c., Hama Sastri BV.,

Balasubramanian SC., 2012, Revised and

updated by Narasinga Rao, Deosthale YG.

and Pant KC., Nutritive Value of Indian

Foods.

5. Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Taylor

RH, Barker H, Fielden H, Baldwin

JM, Bowling AC, Newman HC, Jenkins

AL, Goff DV., 1981. Glycemic index of

foods: a physiological basis for

carbohydrate exchange. Am J Clin Nutr.

34(3):362-6

6. Brouns F., Bjorck I., Frayn KN.,

Gibbs AL., Lang V., Slama G. and Wolever

TM., 2005 Glycemic index methodology.

Nutrition Research Reviews 18(1):145-71.

doi: 10.1079/NRR2005100. 18(1):145-71

7. José Galgani, Carolina Aguirre, and Erik

Díaz., 2006. Acute effect of meal glycemic

index and glycemic load on blood glucose

and insulin responses in humans. Nutr J.

2006; 5: 22. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-5-22

8. Janette Brand Miller et.al, 1994 Foster-

Powell K1, Holt SH, Brand-Miller JC.,

2002. International table of glycemic index



and glycemic load values. Am J Clin

Nutr. 2002 Jul; 76(1):5-56.

9. Bernard J. Venn et al, 2006. Bernard J.

Venn Alison J. Wallace John A.

Monro Tracy Perry Rachel Brown Chris

Frampton Tim J. Green. 2006. The

Glycemic Load Estimated from the

Glycemic Index Does Not Differ Greatly

from That Measured Using a Standard

Curve in Healthy Volunteers. The Journal

of Nutrition. Vol.136(5):1377–

1381, https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/136.5.1377

10. Mettler et al., 2007, 2008. Cited in

https://books.google.co.in/books?isbn=131

5354497.

formulation and development of millet based sweet balls using

Documents