IUBMB Life, 62(6): 477–479, June 2010
Research Communication
Protein Causes a Glycemic Response
William J. Whelan, Hammad Ghanchi and Michael Ricciardi
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA
Summary
The glycemic index is used to compare the extent to which
the blood glucose level increases following the consumption of
foods containing digestible carbohydrate and is considered to be
zero, or not measurable, if the food, such as protein, is carbohy-
drate-free. We have found that after overnight fasting, the con-
sumption of several varieties of meat caused significant
increases in blood glucose levels. We consider these possibly to
be because of gluconeogenesis from the digested protein. It is a
curious feature that in two instances the response was inversely
related to the amount of meat consumed, over the range from
26 to 78 g of protein. Ó 2010 IUBMB
IUBMB Life, 62(6): 477–479, 2010
Keywords glycemic index; blood glucose response; gluconeogenesis.
INTRODUCTION
The Glycemic Index (GI) is widely used to measure, relative
to glucose, the extent to which human blood glucose levels
increase, following consumption of digestible carbohydrate.
Although the amounts of available carbohydrate provided by
different foods may be the same, the different digestibilities of
the carbohydrates causes the blood glucose responses (also
termed the glycemic response) to differ when these are calcu-
lated from the blood glucose/time curve, as the area under the
curve (AUC).
Glucose causes one of the highest blood glucose responses
and is usually used as the standard, being assigned a GI of 100.
Whole-grain breads, which contain the same amount of digesti-
ble carbohydrate as a glucose standard, cause a lower response.
Dietitians recommend consumption of foods with lower GI
values and of indigestible carbohydrates in the form of fiber.
Values of GI for over 2,400 solid and liquid foods are available
Received 16 March 2010; accepted 17 March 2010
Address correspondence to: W. J. Whelan, University of Miami
Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida 33101, USA.
E-mail: wwhelan@miami.edu
ISSN 1521-6543 print/ISSN 1521-6551 online
DOI: 10.1002/iub.333
(1, 2) and the value is sometimes included in the nutrition infor-
mation on the food label. The GI of a food can be predicted
approximately from its content of digestible carbohydrate and if
this content is zero, it is assumed that the GI will be zero.
In response to the question: ‘‘Why do I never see a GI value
for meat and cheese?’’ the following response was provided (2):
‘‘The GI applies only to carbohydrate-containing foods. It is
impossible for us to measure a GI value for foods that contain
negligible carbohydrates. These foods include meat, fish,
chicken, eggs, and so forth.’’ (2). In the listings in Refs. 1 and
2, foods with low-carbohydrate content are not assigned GI val-
ues. This seems to be logical until one considers that GI values
are measured routinely after the normal hours of overnight rest,
and accompanying fasting. The subject’s blood glucose level is
measured, the food is then consumed within 10 to 15 min and
blood glucose levels are measured at 15–30 min intervals over
2 h. During overnight fasting, the brain is supplied with glucose
by the simultaneous hepatic breakdown of glycogen and by glu-
coneogenesis from noncarbohydrate precursors, triggered by the
release of glucagon from pancreatic alpha cells. Hepatic glyco-
gen is not completely depleted overnight, but gluconeogenesis
continues for as long as its substrates are available. The major
substrate is amino acids formed by breakdown of body protein.
Then why should protein-rich food not be considered to produce
a glycemic response when it is consumed after an overnight
fast, and the subject is actively carrying out gluconeogenesis?
Provided that digestion of the protein is relatively rapid, one
would predict that the blood glucose response could be signifi-
cant. We tested this prediction by having subjects consume
supermarket meat products under standard GI test conditions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Anhydrous glucose was purchased from Sigma (St. Louis,
MO). The glucose was dissolved and diluted to 355 mL (12 liq-
uid oz) with water and consumed in 4 equal volumes. Boar’s
Head brand meats were purchased from Publix supermarkets
(Miami, FL). All were labeled as containing 26–28 g of protein
in 4 oz and as being carbohydrate-free, except for Roasted Tur-
478 WHELAN ET AL.

Table 1
Blood glucose responses when meat protein was consumed
after overnight fasting
Food Tester A Tester B
Glucose 25 g 118 118
101 106
Roasted Turkey Breast 4 oz 92 50
12 57
Roasted Turkey Breast 8 oz 33 23
35 46
Hickory Smoked Chicken Breast 4 oz 37 64
31 45
Seasoned Fresh Ham 4 oz NTa 64
73
Tuscan Turkey Breast 4 oz 26 27
Figure 2. The blood glucose responses following consumption
38 25
of 75 g glucose followed, at 120 min. by 4 ounces of Tuscan
Corned Beef Top Round 4 oz 7.9 30
Turkey Breast. Solid lines are for two tests by Tester A and the
32 54
dotted lines are for one test by Tester B. Details are to be found
Corned Beef Top Round 8 oz 7.2 14
in Materials and Methods.
20 11
Corned Beef Top Round 12 oz 7.8 8.3
4.1 26.2 glucose measurement, the first portion of glucose or meat was
consumed and the remaining portions at 4, 8, and 12 min later.
a
NT 5 not tested. See Materials and Methods section for sources of meat.
Blood samples were taken at 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 min
Results are expressed as the areas under the blood glucose/time curve
(mmol 3 min/l). The means of these results are plotted in Fig. 1. after the first measurement. Areas under the blood glucose/time
curve were calculated as mmoles 3 min/l, using the trapezoidal
method. The same subjects also consumed 75 g of glucose in
355 mL of aqueous solution in 4 equal portions, as above, with
measurement of blood glucose over 120 min, as above, and
then 4 oz of Tuscan Turkey Breast was consumed in equal por-
tions at 120, 124, 128, and 132 min, with measurement of blood
glucose at 135, 150, 165, 180, 210, and 240 min.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 1. The blood glucose responses after consuming 25 g of
glucose solution and 4, 8, or 12 ounces of various processed
meats. The bars represent the averages of duplicate tests per-
formed by the two volunteers. The glucose responses have been
normalized to 100 and the others in proportion. The individual
tests from which these averages were calculated are shown in
Table 1.
key Breast (2 g/4 oz). The meats, in 4, 8, or 12 oz amounts,
were divided into 4 equal portions. Duplicate tests of each meat
were carried out.
Blood glucose was measured by fingerprick using an Ascen-
cia Breeze 2 meter. The two testers were male subjects in their
early 20s, who had given informed consent to a protocol
approved by the University of Miami Miller School of Medi-
cine’s Human Subjects Research Office. After the first blood
The results presented in Table 1 and Fig. 1 show the glyce-
mic responses on eating 4 ounces of the different meat prod-
ucts. Although the AUC varied quite widely between the meats,
and even between identical tests by the same individual, the
overall results indicate that substantial amounts of blood glu-
cose could be formed, in fact, up to 50 to 60% of an equivalent
amount of ingested glucose.
To test what happened if gluconeogenesis was switched off,
the subjects consumed 75 g of glucose and then 4 ounces of tur-
key breast, as described under Methods. The glucose produced
the expected glycemic response, but the protein, eaten subse-
quently, did not (Fig. 2). Indeed, the blood glucose level
dropped slightly below the baseline. This seemed to suggest
that gluconeogenesis was responsible for the glycemic response
to meat. We could surmise that the meat protein was digested
rapidly and that the amino acids were absorbed and underwent
gluconeogenesis equally rapidly. Thus, the peak of blood glu-
cose seen when glucose was consumed occurred at 30 min,
 PROTEIN CAUSES A GLYCEMIC RESPONSE
Figure 3. Showing the blood glucose/time curves when Tester B ate 4, 8, and 12 ounces of Corned Beef Top Round in duplicate
tests.
whereas the peak following protein consumption was at 30-
45 min (Fig. 3). It is evident that the conclusion that because
protein does not contain carbohydrate, it cannot have a measur-
able GI, is invalid, at least under the experimental conditions
we employed.
Given these findings and given the huge number of protein-
containing foods to which no GI has been assigned, we consid-
ered that measurements may not have been performed, the
assignment of no GI being on the basis of the absence of carbo-
hydrate. However, our attention was caught by the lowered gly-
cemic response when 8 ounces of turkey breast were consumed,
versus the finding for 4 oz (Table 1, Fig. 1). At this stage, a lit-
erature search revealed that an attempt to measure a glycemic
response with 12 oz of fried steak had been made, but the
response was negligible (3). Here was a possible reconciliation
between our positive results and the published negative findings.
When we tested corned beef in 4, 8, and 12 oz portions we
found the same lowered response for 8 oz versus 4 ounces, as
seen for turkey breast, and an even lower response for 12 oz
(Table 1). This is illustrated more clearly by plotting the blood
glucose/time curves for each of Tester B’s tests in Fig. 3. We
had considered whether some or all of the blood glucose spike
might not have resulted from the ingested protein, but as a
result of the glucagon released when the amino acids arrived,
that could simultaneously have triggered breakdown of the re-
sidual hepatic glycogen. But this would not seem compatible
479
with the lowering of the blood glucose spike consequent on
consuming increased amounts of protein.
Here, then is an apparent paradox, that is, the glycemic
response to meat consumption is inversely related to the amount
consumed, at least between 26 and 78 g of protein. We do not
know if the glycemic response to meat applies only to the fast-
ing state. These matters require further investigation.
As exercise induces gluconeogenesis, eating protein during
exercise might be a means of increasing muscle glycogen
stores. And so-called low carb-high protein diets might not be
so low carb after all.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The findings reported here are outcome of research on the gly-
cemic index funded by the Agatston Research Foundation, to
whom the authors express their thanks. The authors also thank
Dr. Ronald Goldberg for helpful discussions.
REFERENCES
1. Foster-Powell, K., Holt, S.H., and Brand-Miller, J.C. (2002) Interna-
tional table of glycemic index and glycemic load values. Am. J. Clin.
Nutr. 76, 5–56.
2. Brand-Miller, J., Marsh, K., and Sandall, P. (2008) The new glucose revo-
lution. Low GI gluten-free eating made easy. Da Capo Press, Philadelphia.
3. Brand-Miller, J.C., Colagiuri, S., and Gan, S.T. (2000) Insulin sensitivity
predicts glycemia after a protein meal. Metabolism 49, 1–5.