With the introduction of the glycemic index in 1981, which can be defined as a measure of carbohydrate quality within foods, there has been a wealth of research into its' application to cognitive function. This research has been based on the theory that the availability of blood-borne glucose can have an impact on cognitive performance. This is supported by work that has shown that the brain consumes an immense amount of energy relative to the rest of the body, but possesses minute stores of glycogen which it could convert into its main energy source; glucose. This means the brain is reliant on the glucose supplied to it by the blood, which in turn requires the consumption of foods that can be broken down into glucose.~With this in mind, the vast majority of literature has focussed on the acute effects that foods differing in glycemic values may have on cognitive function, and have found many relevant findings such as less cognitive performance decline across the morning for children who eat a low GI breakfast. This could be explained as a low GI breakfast will contain higher quality carbohydrates, or in other words; slower absorbing carbohydrates, which would suggest the brain has access to a steady supply of glucose across the more.~Interesting work in the field of physiology has proposed the presence of a second meal effect, which can be defined as the glycemic index of a meal having an effect on the glycemic response to a subsequent meal. Surprisingly, there are very few pieces of psychology literature that investigate the possibility of a second cognitive meal effect, which is based on the theory that if a meals' GI can affect the glycemic response to a subsequent meal, then it may also have an effect on cognitive function. However, research into this has found some evidence for such an effect.~Although, there has been a wealth of research into the glycemic index as a whole, the methodology varies greatly from study to study. These problems are most evident when looking at the times that cognitive function tests are administered. For research based upon a theory that relies on availability of blood-borne glucose, the times of cognitive testing do not always align themselves with the time points that the glycemic response indicates are ideal testing times.~An initial study by the investigators looked to resolve the current lack of consistency amongst previous research by providing participants with three meals throughout the course of a day, whilst measuring blood glucose via finger prick. The aim was to identify where the biggest differences in blood glucose occur when looking at the results of a sample of 24 healthy participants. The time points identified would then provide information as to when significant differences in cognitive performance throughout the day may be expected.~A second study fed a larger healthy sample (40 participants) the same meals, but also included a cognitive task battery. Results from the blood glucose concentrations supported results from study 1, with the two diets producing measureable differences in the glycaemic profiles produced across a test day. This is another step into potentially producing a diet that could promote healthy glucose regulation and cognitive function.~The current study aims to investigate the effects of two GI diets (low vs. high GI) in a sample (25 participants) that has diet controlled type 2 diabetes. This sample has been chosen as those with diabetes have been shown to suffer with poor glucose tolerance, along with the associated deficits such as compromised cognitive function. Therefore, it is expected that differences produced by the two diets on blood glucose concentrations and cognitive performance will be greater than those previously seen. If this is the case after analyzing the results, it will provide a potential strategy (diet) for improving glucose tolerance and cognitive performance in a vulnerable section of the population.
The current study aims to investigate the effects of two GI diets (low vs. high GI) in a sample (25 participants) that has diet controlled type 2 diabetes. This sample has been chosen as those with diabetes have been shown to suffer with poor glucose tolerance, along with the associated deficits such as compromised cognitive function. Therefore, it is expected that differences produced by the two diets on blood glucose concentrations and cognitive performance will be greater than those previously seen. If this is the case after analyzing the results, it will provide a potential strategy (diet) for improving glucose tolerance and cognitive performance in a vulnerable section of the population.