READING SLIP · 2005

The paper on the table

Palatability and glucose, insulin and satiety responses of chickpea flour and extruded chickpea flour bread eaten as part of a breakfast

Johnson, S. K., Thomas, S. J., & Hall, R. S. · 2005

Abstract-based reading · consulted October 17, 2026. A selected teaching example, not a systematic review or dietary recommendation. Full-text methods, funding, registration and risk of bias have not been assessed.

Study design
Randomized, single-blind crossover study.
Who took part
12 healthy volunteers recruited; 11 completed.
Studied preparation
Chickpea-flour or extruded-chickpea-flour bread breakfasts, each with 50 g available carbohydrate.
Compared with
White-bread breakfast, tested twice.
Time frame
Four breakfast visits, with postmeal measures and subsequent food intake.
What was measured
Glucose, insulin, satiety, palatability and food intake.
Reported finding
The lower glucose response with chickpea bread was a trend (P = 0.087), while insulin response was higher. No differences in glycaemic index, satiety, food intake or palatability were detected.
Uncertainty
The abstract provides no confidence intervals for these contrasts. Small sample size and multiple outcomes warrant a careful reading.
What this cannot tell us
Flour baked into bread is not interchangeable with whole chickpeas in a salad. A trend is not a demonstrated glucose benefit.
Read the source abstract ↗Bring chickpea to the study table →All research-reading cards →

Which result would a headline leave out?

Write a one-sentence account that retains the unexpected and null findings. If it cannot fit honestly, shorten the promise rather than deleting the inconvenient outcome.

Take this question to the next paper

Who took part? What exactly was prepared, compared, and measured? Which result remains uncertain? Keep those answers beside any claim you save. These are editorial reading prompts, not findings from the paper.

KEEP THE FOOTNOTES

Sources & further reading

  1. Johnson, S. K., Thomas, S. J., & Hall, R. S. · 2005

    European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 59(2), 169–176. Primary trial; reading card based on the PubMed abstract, consulted October 17, 2026.

Something to add or correct? Prepare a note for the collection.

Your notes on this card

What worked, what you changed, what you want to remember. Private to this browser.