Search

Background: Palm sugar (Arenga pinnata) is believed to benefit people with diabetes mellitus since they believe it has a low glycemic index. However, the total carbohydrates in palm sugar, particularly sucrose, are high. Thus, offering palm sugar to diabetic people still needs further studies. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine differences in the glycemic response, glycemic index, and glycemic load of palm sugar compared to cane sugar. Methods: This study used an experimental design. Measurement of the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) through the finger-prick capillary blood test method. The main materials in this study were commercial white cane sugar as reference food and traditional palm sugar product of Lebak District, Banten Province, as a test food. Reference food and test food were provided equivalent to 50 g available carbohydrate dissolved in 250 ml mineral water subjected to 5 men and 5 women. The glycemic response was determined by the area under the curve (AUC) of the trapezoid method. The difference in glycemic response between the reference food and the test food was assessed using the independent sample t-test. Results: The peak of the increase in blood glucose occurred at 30 minutes. There was no difference in glycemic response between the reference food and the test food (p-value 0.685). The palm sugar glycemic index was 98.71 and was categorized into the high glycemic index category. Meanwhile, the glycemic load of palm sugar and cane sugar was 11.80 and 12.22, those categorized into the medium glycemic load category. Conclusions: No differences in glycemic response between palm sugar and cane sugar. The glycemic index of palm sugar was considered high and was not different from cane sugar. The glycemic load of palm sugar and cane sugar was classified as moderate due to the small serving size. Using palm sugar less than cane sugar was expected to provide a lower glycemic response, glycemic index, and glycemic load., Background: Palm sugar (Arenga pinnata) is believed to benefit people with diabetes mellitus since they believe it has a low glycemic index. However, the total carbohydrates in palm sugar, particularly sucrose, are high. Thus, offering palm sugar to diabetic people still needs further studies.Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine differences in the glycemic response, glycemic index, and glycemic load of palm sugar compared to cane sugar.Methods: This study used an experimental design. Measurement of the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) through the finger-prick capillary blood test method. The main materials in this study were commercial white cane sugar as reference food and traditional palm sugar product of Lebak District, Banten Province, as a test food. Reference food and test food were provided equivalent to 50 g available carbohydrate dissolved in 250 ml mineral water subjected to 5 men and 5 women. The glycemic response was determined by the area under the curve (AUC) of the trapezoid method. The difference in glycemic response between the reference food and the test food was assessed using the independent sample t-test.Results: The peak of the increase in blood glucose occurred at 30 minutes. There was no difference in glycemic response between the reference food and the test food (p-value 0.685). The palm sugar glycemic index was 98.71 and was categorized into the high GI category. Meanwhile, the glycemic load of palm sugar and cane sugar was 11.80 and 12.22, those categorized into the medium GL category.Conclusions: No differences in glycemic response between palm sugar and cane sugar. The glycemic index of palm sugar was considered high and was not significantly different from cane sugar. The glycemic load of palm sugar and cane sugar was classified as moderate due to the small serving size. Using palm sugar less than cane sugar was expected to provide a lower glycemic response, glycemic index, and glycemic load.

Background: Norovirus has become a major cause of severe outbreaks of gastroenteritis since the discovery of the rotavirus vaccine, with the main symptom being diarrhea. Until now, research on the epidemiological analysis of norovirus has not been carried out at Regional Public Hospital (RSUD) Dr. Soetomo, Surabaya. Purpose: This study aims to provide clinical epidemiology data and an analysis of norovirus infections in children with diarrhea at Regional Public Hospital (RSUD) Dr. Soetomo, Surabaya, Indonesia, including the prevalence of norovirus infection in each age group and sex, its clinical appearance, and its seasonal variation. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in children aged 1–60 months hospitalized for diarrhea in RSUD Dr. Soetomo between April 2013 and March 2014. Identification of the virus in the stool was done by norovirus enzyme immunoassay Quick NaviTM Noro2. The proportion, age, sex, clinical symptoms, and patterns of the norovirus seasonal data were calculated. Results: Norovirus was detected in 64 samples (19%) of the 340 stool samples, with a mean patient age of 11.75 months; it was mostly found in patients less than 24 months of age (95%), and 64% were male. The monthly pattern of norovirus infection was mostly found in November, followed by May and April. The clinical symptoms were fever (72%), vomiting (66%), bloating (59%), abdominal cramps (34%), perianal inflammation (27%), abdominal distension (16%), and seizures (8%). Conclusion: The prevalence of norovirus was found to be high in patients with diarrhea aged 1–60 months hospitalized in RSUD Dr. Soetomo, with a proportion of 19%. Further research is needed to determine the severity of norovirus infection.