Impact of fat and protein on postprandial glycemia in gestational diabetes: A randomized pilot crossover trial

Abstract Background The first‐line treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is dietary modification, but there is little evidence on the impact of fat and protein on glycemia in pregnancy. Objective To examine the effect of fat and protein on postprandial glycemia in individuals with GDM and to determine if this response differed in GDM characterized by insulin resistance versus insulin deficiency. Methods We conducted a double‐blind randomized crossover pilot study using test meals with similar caloric (390–411 kcal) and carbohydrate content (45%), but with either high‐fat (41%) or high‐protein (35%) content in diet‐controlled GDM ( N = 16). We used fasting glucose and insulin levels to classify participants as insulin‐resistant or insulin‐deficient GDM. The primary outcome was peak postprandial glucose within 3 h following the test meals measured by a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). Secondary outcomes included glucose area under the curve (AUC) and glycemic excursion (peak postprandial glucose minus pre‐meal glucose). We used t ‐tests to evaluate the relationship between meal type and outcomes. Results The high‐fat meal resulted in a higher mean (standard deviation [SD]) peak postprandial glucose (146.4 [19.7] mg/dL) than the high‐protein meal (137.2 [21.1] mg/dL, p = 0.03) (mean difference, 9.2 [15.9] mg/dL; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78, 148.4). The glucose AUC (high fat: 26,236 [3220] mg/dL*min, high protein: 24,788 [3567] mg/dL*min, p = 0.03) (mean difference, 1448 [2462] mg/dL*min; 95% CI, 136.0, 2760) and the glycemic excursion (high fat: 68.3 [23.3] mg/dL, high protein: 59.7 [22.3] mg/dL, p = 0.03) (mean difference, 8.6 [14.9] mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.7, 16.5) were higher after the high‐fat meal. There was no differential peak postprandial glucose response to high‐fat versus high‐protein in insulin‐deficient versus insulin‐resistant GDM (mean difference, −0.25 mg/dL; 95% CI, −24.1, 23.5, p = 0.98). Conclusion In GDM, a high‐protein meal leads to lower CGM‐measured postprandial glucose compared to a high‐fat meal, when calories and carbohydrate content are held constant. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04187521

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Pregnancy
Published
2025-12-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/pmf2.70182
Primary Topic
Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impact of fat and protein on postprandial glycemia in gestational diabetes: A randomized pilot crossover trial

Tanayott Thaweethai, Stacey Nelson, Ellen W. Seely, Sarah Hsu et al.
Pregnancy
Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
article

Impact of fat and protein on postprandial glycemia in gestational diabetes: A randomized pilot crossover trial

Tanayott Thaweethai, Stacey Nelson, Ellen W. Seely, Sarah Hsu, Diana C. Soria‐Contreras, Robin Azevedo, Sarah C. Lassey, Emily A. Rosenberg, Camille Elise Powe, Kaitlyn James, Jamie Garry, Estelle Kelty
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background The first‐line treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is dietary modification, but there is little evidence on the impact of fat and protein on glycemia in pregnancy. Objective To examine the effect of fat and protein on postprandial glycemia in individuals with GDM and to determine if this response differed in GDM characterized by insulin resistance versus insulin deficiency. Methods We conducted a double‐blind randomized crossover pilot study using test meals with similar caloric (390–411 kcal) and carbohydrate content (45%), but with either high‐fat (41%) or high‐protein (35%) content in diet‐controlled GDM ( N = 16). We used fasting glucose and insulin levels to classify participants as insulin‐resistant or insulin‐deficient GDM. The primary outcome was peak postprandial glucose within 3 h following the test meals measured by a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). Secondary outcomes included glucose area under the curve (AUC) and glycemic excursion (peak postprandial glucose minus pre‐meal glucose). We used t ‐tests to evaluate the relationship between meal type and outcomes. Results The high‐fat meal resulted in a higher mean (standard deviation [SD]) peak postprandial glucose (146.4 [19.7] mg/dL) than the high‐protein meal (137.2 [21.1] mg/dL, p = 0.03) (mean difference, 9.2 [15.9] mg/dL; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78, 148.4). The glucose AUC (high fat: 26,236 [3220] mg/dL*min, high protein: 24,788 [3567] mg/dL*min, p = 0.03) (mean difference, 1448 [2462] mg/dL*min; 95% CI, 136.0, 2760) and the glycemic excursion (high fat: 68.3 [23.3] mg/dL, high protein: 59.7 [22.3] mg/dL, p = 0.03) (mean difference, 8.6 [14.9] mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.7, 16.5) were higher after the high‐fat meal. There was no differential peak postprandial glucose response to high‐fat versus high‐protein in insulin‐deficient versus insulin‐resistant GDM (mean difference, −0.25 mg/dL; 95% CI, −24.1, 23.5, p = 0.98). Conclusion In GDM, a high‐protein meal leads to lower CGM‐measured postprandial glucose compared to a high‐fat meal, when calories and carbohydrate content are held constant. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04187521

PregnancyVol. 2(1)
Broad Institute (US), Brigham and Women's Hospital (US), Harvard University (US), Medical University of South Carolina (US), Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Endocrine Fellows Foundation, National Institutes of Health
Openalex Percentile: Top 49%
Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.