2010The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & MetabolismOpen access

Increased Postprandial GIP and Glucagon Responses, But Unaltered GLP-1 Response after Intervention with Steroid Hormone, Relative Physical Inactivity, And High-Calorie Diet in Healthy Subjects

Katrine Bagge Hansen, Tina Vilsbøll, Jonatan I. Bagger, Jens J. Holst, Filip K. Knop

Open full text 46 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Increased postprandial glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon responses and reduced postprandial glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) responses have been observed in some patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The causality of these pathophysiological traits is unknown. We aimed to determine the impact of insulin resistance and reduced glucose tolerance on postprandial GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon responses in healthy subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 4-h 2200 KJ-liquid meal test was performed in 10 healthy Caucasian males without family history of diabetes [age, 24 ± 3 yr (mean ± sd); body mass index, 24 ± 2 kg/m(2); fasting plasma glucose, 4.9 ± 0.3 mm; hemoglobin A(1)c, 5.4 ± 0.1%] before and after intervention using high-calorie diet, relative physical inactivity, and administration of prednisolone (37.5 mg/d) for 12 d. RESULTS: The intervention resulted in insulin resistance according to the homeostatic model assessment [1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 2.3 (mean ± SEM) ± 1.3; P = 0.02] and increased postprandial glucose excursions [area under curve (AUC), 51 ± 28 vs. 161 ± 32 mm · 4 h; P = 0.045], fasting plasma insulin (36 ± 3 vs. 61 ± 6 pm; P = 0.02), and postprandial insulin responses (AUC, 22 ± 6 vs. 43 ± 13 nm · 4 h; P = 0.03). This disruption of glucose homeostasis had no impact on postprandial GLP-1 responses (AUC, 1.5 ± 0.7 vs. 2.0 ± 0.5 nm · 4 h; P = 0.56), but resulted in exaggerated postprandial GIP (6.2 ± 1.0 vs. 10.0 ± 1.3 nm · 4 h; P = 0.003) and glucagon responses (1.6 ± 1.5 vs. 2.4 ± 3.2; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that increased postprandial GIP and glucagon responses may occur as a consequence of insulin resistance and/or reduced glucose tolerance. Our data suggest that acute disruption of glucose homeostasis does not result in reduced postprandial GLP-1 responses as observed in some individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: Increased postprandial glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon responses and reduced postprandial glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) responses have been observed in some patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The causality of these pathophysiological traits is unknown. We aimed to determine the impact of insulin resistance and reduced glucose tolerance on postprandial GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon responses in healthy subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 4-h 2200 KJ-liquid meal test was performed in 10 healthy Caucasian males without family history of diabetes [age, 24 ± 3 yr (mean ± sd); body mass index, 24 ± 2 kg/m(2); fasting plasma glucose, 4.9 ± 0.3 mm; hemoglobin A(1)c, 5.4 ± 0.1%] before and after intervention using high-calorie diet, relative physical inactivity, and administration of prednisolone (37.5 mg/d) for 12 d. RESULTS: The intervention resulted in insulin resistance according to the homeostatic model assessment [1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 2.3 (mean ± SEM) ± 1.3; P = 0.02] and increased postprandial glucose excursions [area under curve (AUC), 51 ± 28 vs. 161 ± 32 mm · 4 h; P = 0.045], fasting plasma insulin (36 ± 3 vs. 61 ± 6 pm; P = 0.02), and postprandial insulin responses (AUC, 22 ± 6 vs. 43 ± 13 nm · 4 h; P = 0.03). This disruption of glucose homeostasis had no impact on postprandial GLP-1 responses (AUC, 1.5 ± 0.7 vs. 2.0 ± 0.5 nm · 4 h; P = 0.56), but resulted in exaggerated postprandial GIP (6.2 ± 1.0 vs. 10.0 ± 1.3 nm · 4 h; P = 0.003) and glucagon responses (1.6 ± 1.5 vs. 2.4 ± 3.2; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that increased postprandial GIP and glucagon responses may occur as a consequence of insulin resistance and/or reduced glucose tolerance. Our data suggest that acute disruption of glucose homeostasis does not result in reduced postprandial GLP-1 responses as observed in some individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 46 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: Increased postprandial glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon responses and reduced postprandial glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) responses have been observed in some patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The causality of these pathophysiological traits is unknown. We aimed to determine the impact of insulin resistance and reduced glucose tolerance on postprandial GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon responses in healthy subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 4-h 2200 KJ-liquid meal test was performed in 10 healthy Caucasian males without family history of diabetes [age, 24 ± 3 yr (mean ± sd); body mass index, 24 ± 2 kg/m(2); fasting plasma glucose, 4.9 ± 0.3 mm; hemoglobin A(1)c, 5.4 ± 0.1%] before and after intervention using high-calorie diet, relative physical inactivity, and administration of prednisolone (37.5 mg/d) for 12 d. RESULTS: The intervention resulted in insulin resistance according to the homeostatic model assessment [1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 2.3 (mean ± SEM) ± 1.3; P = 0.02] and increased postprandial glucose excursions [area under curve (AUC), 51 ± 28 vs. 161 ± 32 mm · 4 h; P = 0.045], fasting plasma insulin (36 ± 3 vs. 61 ± 6 pm; P = 0.02), and postprandial insulin responses (AUC, 22 ± 6 vs. 43 ± 13 nm · 4 h; P = 0.03). This disruption of glucose homeostasis had no impact on postprandial GLP-1 responses (AUC, 1.5 ± 0.7 vs. 2.0 ± 0.5 nm · 4 h; P = 0.56), but resulted in exaggerated postprandial GIP (6.2 ± 1.0 vs. 10.0 ± 1.3 nm · 4 h; P = 0.003) and glucagon responses (1.6 ± 1.5 vs. 2.4 ± 3.2; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that increased postprandial GIP and glucagon responses may occur as a consequence of insulin resistance and/or reduced glucose tolerance. Our data suggest that acute disruption of glucose homeostasis does not result in reduced postprandial GLP-1 responses as observed in some individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Key concepts: Postprandial, Internal medicine, Endocrinology, Medicine, Glucagon, Hormone, Calorie, Glucagon-like peptide-1

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Increased Postprandial GIP and Glucagon Responses, But Unaltered GLP-1 Response after Intervention with Steroid Hormone, Relative Physical Inactivity, And High-Calorie Diet in Healthy Subjects — Research Paper | ScholarLens