MEDIUM/LOW GLYCAEMIC INDEX PRODUCTS AND METHODS

Abstract

The invention relates to a process comprising (a) providing a quantity of plant material; (b) heating the material of (a) in aqueous medium to a temperature of 75 to 105 C.; (c) physically disrupting the material of (b); (d) processing the physically disrupted material of (c) to enrich for cells and/or cell clusters; and (e) drying the material of (d). The invention also relates to a product, which comprises at least 30% or more intact plant cells, which comprises 15% or less water by weight, which has a particle size in the range 75-500 m, characterised in that the product comprises at least 30% resistant starch as a proportion of total starch. The invention also relates to foodstuffs.

Claims

1. A process comprising a. providing a quantity of plant material; b. heating the material of (a) in aqueous medium to a temperature of 75 to 105 C.; c. physically disrupting the material of (b); d. processing the physically disrupted material of (c) by sieving to obtain particles in the size range 20 m to 4 mm; and e. drying the material of (d).

2. A process according to claim 1 wherein the size range is selected from the group consisting of: 200 m to 4 mm, 75 m to 500 m, 65 m to 500 m, 50 m to 500 m, 20 m to 250 m, 50 m to 250 m, and 80 m to 150 m.

3. A process according to claim 1 wherein step (d) comprises wet sieving.

4. A process according to claim 1 wherein the material being sieved comprises at least 50% water.

5. A process according to claim 1 wherein step (b) is carried out for sufficient time to solubilise intercellular pectin.

6. A process according to claim 5 wherein step (b) is carried out for 30 to 120 minutes.

7. A process according to claim 1 wherein step (c) comprises homogenisation.

8. A process according to claim 7 wherein homogenisation comprises processing the material with a blender or ultraturrax homogeniser.

9. A process according to claim 1 wherein step (e) comprises roller drying.

10. A process according to claim 1 wherein step (e) comprises heating the wet material of step (d) to a temperature of 80 to 200 C. until the water content of the material is <10% by weight.

11. A process according to claim 1 wherein step (e) comprises spreading the material in a layer <0.5 cm thick and drying in a deck oven.

12. A process according to claim 1 wherein step (e) comprises air drying until the water content of the material is <14% by weight.

13. A product which comprises at least 30% or more intact plant cells, which comprises 15% or less water by weight, which has a particle size in the range 50-500 m, characterised in that the product comprises at least 20% resistant starch as a proportion of total starch.

14. A product according to claim 13 which has a particle size in the range 75-500 m, characterised in that the product comprises at least 30% resistant starch as a proportion of total starch.

15. A product according to claim 13 wherein said product comprises at least 64% intact plant cells.

16. A product according to claim 13 wherein said product comprises at least 80% resistant starch, as a proportion of total starch.

17. A product according to claim 13 wherein said product comprises 35-85 g starch per 100 g product.

18. A product according to claim 13 wherein said product comprises 8 to 14% water by weight.

19. A product according to claim 13 wherein said product comprises <10% water by weight.

20. A product according to claim 19 wherein said product comprises <5% water by weight.

21. A product according to claim 13 wherein said product is a powder.

22. A product according to claim 13 wherein said plant material comprises chickpea (Cicer arietinum).

23. A product according to claim 13 wherein said resistant starch is RS1 type resistant starch.

24. A product according to claim 13 wherein said product is obtained by a process according to claim 1.

25. A foodstuff comprising a product according to claim 13.

26. A foodstuff according to claim 25 wherein said foodstuff is selected from the group consisting of: a biscuit, a cracker, a wafer, a cake, a smoothie, a pasta, a noodle, a baked goods, an extruded cereal, a beverage, an infant nutrition product, a sports nutrition product, and a high protein product.

27. A foodstuff according to claim 25 wherein said foodstuff is a foodstuff having a glycaemic index selected from the group consisting of: 69 or less, 60 or less, 55 or less.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0422] FIG. 1 shows diagrams to illustrate the effects of mastication or physical deformation of edible plant tissue on cell wall rupture (A) and cell wall separation (B) and the implications of intracellular macronutrient bioaccessibility (release).

[0423] FIG. 2 shows (A) photographs of chickpea flour prepared by milling of the dried seed and chickpea cell powder prepared by cell separation method described in this invention; (B) light microscopy images of separated chickpea cells; and (C) starch granules released from chickpea cells after rupturing the cell walls.

[0424] FIG. 3 shows starch digestion (%) over 90 min of cell powder materials from chickpeas and boiled chickpea flour and micrographs showing typical appearance of flour (A) and cell powder (B) after digestion.

[0425] FIG. 4 shows starch digestion (%) over 60 min, photographs of cell powders and polarised light microscopy images of intact cells of legume tissue. In particular the following species are shown: Cicer arietinum, Pisum sativum, Phaseolus lunatus, Lens culinaris.

[0426] FIG. 5 shows a bar chart of starch digestion values after 90 min incubation (%) of chickpea flour and cell powders prepared by the invention (KCL) compared with similar dried cell powders, including chickpea of the Tosh sample.

[0427] FIG. 6 shows a flow chart. N.B. extraction/enrichment in FIG. 6 may mean separation of the cells or cell clusters from at least part of the homogenised mixture.

[0428] FIG. 7 shows incremental postprandial blood glucose concentrations (mean+standard error) from 15 healthy males in response to a test meal (25 g starch) made with the Product (chickpea cell powder) as the carbohydrate source. Figure shows in vivo data showing low glycaemic effects of the product of the invention. Data is plotted together with published data from a different cohort showing the glycaemic response (n=8) to a matched carbohydrate load of glucose (Lee & Wolever, 1998, Europ J Clin Nutr 52:924-928).

[0429] FIG. 8 shows a Scanning Electron Micrograph of an intact cell in the chickpea powder.

[0430] FIG. 9 shows a Scanning Electron Micrograph of spray dried material (not part of the inventionsee examples).

[0431] FIG. 10 shows light micrographs. In more detail, FIG. 10 shows light micrographs of cell powder in baked bread crumb (A), crust (B). Bi-refringent starch is evident under polarised light (C) and intact cells containing RS1 (D) are clearly present after baking.

[0432] FIG. 11A shows a bar chart and graphs. In more detail, FIG. 11A shows a barchart of resistant starch (RS90) and starch digestibility curves of loaf bread in which increasing proportions (0 to 90%) of the wheat flour has been substituted with product according to the invention (in this example produced from chickpea).

[0433] FIG. 11B shows a bar chart and graphs. For more detail, see example 11.

[0434] FIG. 12 shows a chart. In more detail, FIG. 12 shows a barchart of the proportion of intact cells in cell powders obtained according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea).

[0435] FIG. 13 shows a graph.

[0436] FIG. 14 shows a photomicrograph.

[0437] FIG. 15 shows a bar chart. In more detail, shown are overall hedonic scores from informal panel (n=15) assessment of products enriched with product according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea).

[0438] FIG. 16 shows photographs. In more detail, shown is the effect of displacing wheat flour with product according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea) on product quality.

[0439] FIG. 17 shows a bar chart/graph.

[0440] FIG. 18 shows a bar chart of % intact cells.

[0441] The invention is now described by way of examples. These examples are intended to be illustrative and not limiting on the scope of the invention, which is as defined by the claims.

Example 1Product

[0442] The product obtained from the process described above is a stable and uniform, dry powder with a neutral flavour and odour, and similar appearance to flour but a slightly grittier texture. Initially the powder has a colour tainted appearance (e.g. yellow for chickpea cell powders), however this pigmentation fades to an off-white colour during storage.

[0443] FIG. 2A shows an example of chickpea cell powder according to the invention (75-250 m after 2 months storage) compared to conventional chickpea flour.

[0444] Microscopically, the powder consists predominantly of separated intact plant cells (at least 64% intact cells, n=2730 counts) with encapsulated pre/part-gelatinised (birefringent) starch (FIGS. 2B and C). The presence of birefringence indicates that the starch has retained a degree of ordered structure, characteristic of native starch.

[0445] The physical appearance (A) and microstructure of cell powders according to the invention (B) and conventional flour (C) viewed under polarised light to show birefringent starch (see FIG. 2).

Example 2Nutrient Composition

[0446] The nutrient composition of the cell powder reflects its botanical source. The table below shows an example of data from conventional chickpea flour, cell powders of the invention and the original whole pulse plant material (i.e. seeds).

[0447] The moisture content of cell powders when stored is similar to conventional flour and typically between 8 and 14%.

[0448] The total starch content, measured directly, is typically between 45 and 65 g/100 g fresh weight.

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 1 Overview of nutrient composition in whole chickpeas, de- hulled milled chickpea flour and a de-hulled chickpea cell powder, all prepared from the same batch of chickpeas. PLANT CONVEN- CHICKPEA MATERIAL TIONAL CELL WHOLE CHICKPEA POWDER TEST CHICKPEAS FLOUR (INVENTION) Energy (kJ/100 g) 1366 1.0 1408.3 5.8 1409.7 5.7 Energy (kcal/100 g) 325.7 0.3 335.7 1.5 334.3 1.3 Protein (g/100 g) 21.7 0.2 23.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 Available 35.8 0.1 37.5 0.6 50.0 0.3 Carbohydrate (g/100 g) Sugars (g/100 g) 2.9 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Starch (g/100 g) 33.0 0.1 34.6 0.7 49.9 0.3 Fat (g/100 g) 5.2 0.1 5.3 0.0 2.4 0.1 Dietary Fibre* 24.4 0.1 22.6 0.7 14.0 0.4 (g/100 g) Ash (g/100 g) 3.1 0.1 2.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 Moisture (g/100 g) 9.7 0.0 8.7 0.0 12.3 0.0 Values (wet-weight basis) are means SEM (n = 3). *AOAC method; values include cell wall polysaccharides.

Example 3Suitability as Food Ingredient

[0449] The suitability of the product of the invention as a functional food ingredient with low glycaemic properties can be demonstrated by its digestibility when subjected to in vitro digestion. This product is digested at a significantly slower rate and to a lesser extent than conventional chickpea flour, or indeed other conventional flours (FIG. 3).

[0450] The exact digestibility profile is subject to some variation depending on material characteristics, but typically after 90 min, between 20 and 40% of the starch in the cell powders has been digested.

[0451] The lowest rate and extent of starch digestion is obtained for coarse cell powders containing clusters of cells. Post-digestion, a high proportion of intact starch-filled cells are still evident when the digested material is examined microscopically (FIG. 3).

[0452] Thus it can be expected that ingestion of a meal prepared from pre-cooked cell powder according to the present invention will give a significantly lower glycaemic and insulinaemic response compared with an equivalent meal prepared from cooked conventional flour.

Example 4Plant Materials

[0453] For convenience, many of the examples herein, and the description of the invention, have been presented using pulses, notably chickpea seeds. However, the process can also be applied to other pulses generally and a broader range of edible plant materials in the pectin-rich fruit and vegetable category to obtain cell powder materials with similar characteristics (FIG. 4). Selecting materials from different botanical sources based on required characteristics provides scope to control sensory properties, processing performance and nutrient delivery for targeted applications.

[0454] Similar results have also been achieved using canned pulses (e.g. chickpeas), in which the hydrothermal treatment occurs during the canning operation (see example digestibility curve for canned chickpea cell powder, FIG. 3).

[0455] FIG. 4 shows starch digestibility of cell powders prepared from various other pulses (i.e. various botanical sources) compared with boiled chickpea flour.

[0456] Referring to FIG. 4, this shows the invention applied to a diverse range of species: [0457] Cicer arietinum L. (Chickpea) [0458] Pisum sativum L. (Pea, incl. Yellow- and Green-split pea) [0459] Phaseolus lunates L. (incl. Butter bean, also known as Lima bean) [0460] Lens culinaris Medikus or syn. Lens esculenta Moench (incl. Red and Green lentils)

[0461] The scientific names of the species in the list above correspond to the common names of the legume samples shown in FIG. 4.

[0462] FIG. 4 thus demonstrates that the invention can be worked on a diverse range of plant materials. These can be made into a cellular powder product in which the starch is resistant to digestion as described herein.

[0463] We refer to FIG. 13. This is another example performed on a separate occasion which includes kidney beans (Bean i.e. Phaseolus vulgaris L. (incl kidney beans)), potato, lentil rice and quinoa.

Additional Plant Materials

[0464] Additional suitable species include: [0465] Faba beans (Vicia faba L), [0466] Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp., syn. Cajanus indicus Spreng) [0467] Mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek, syn. Phaseolus aureus Roxb., Phaseolus radiatus L.) [0468] Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp., syn. Vigna sesquipedalis Fruhw., Vigna sinensis (L.) Savi ex Hassk.) [0469] Other species within the Phaseolus genus [0470] Potato (Solanum tuberosum L., for example cv. Charlotte)

[0471] The inventors teach that the similarities in cell wall composition (see for example Gooneratne, J., Needs, P. W., Ryden, P. & Selvendran, R. R. Structural features of cell wall polysaccharides from the cotyledons of mung bean Vigna radiata. Carbohydr. Res. 265, 61-77, (1994); Mwangwela, A. M., Waniska, R. D. and Minnaar, A., 2006. Hydrothermal treatments of two cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) varieties: effect of micronisation on physicochemical and structural characteristics. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 86(1), pp. 35-45) conveys to the reader that behaviour upon processing according to the present invention extends to these species.

[0472] In addition, the inventors have observed critical properties such as cell separation on processing according to the present invention within these plant materials.

[0473] Exemplary results of cell-separation experiments, for example using potato, are provided in FIG. 14.

Example 5Resistance To Starch Digestion

[0474] Considering the product signature characteristics, the product of the invention, such as the dry cell powder product, that we have developed is found to deliver a substantially greater resistance to starch digestion (i.e. lower extent of starch digestibility when subjected to -amylase hydrolysis) (see FIG. 5).

[0475] The product also delivers lower rates of starch digestion compared with prior art ingredients described by other workers (see FIG. 5).

[0476] FIG. 5 shows the extent of starch digestibility over a stipulated time period of cell powders of the invention compared to conventional flour as reported by different workers. Starch digestibility data was based on percent digested over 90 min, so that samples with values <100% contain resistant starch. Data were normalised to the internal reference material (i.e. conventional flour or crushed cells) which was set at 100%. Where more than one data point was available, the highest value for percent starch digested was used. Invention is marked KCL. Flour, Tosh and Oyman are prior art products. Oyman refers to the method described in WO2007/0006383. Thus, this comparative data demonstrates advantages of the invention.

Example 6Exemplary Method

[0477] Method for Chickpea Cell Production.

[0478] In this example, (a) providing a quantity of plant material comprises: [0479] 1. Chickpeas washed with hot water (55-70 C.) with constant change in water for at least 10 minutes. [0480] 2. Peas then left and soaked in cold water (<10 C.) for between 12-18 hours. [0481] 3. After soaking the chickpeas were washed again in hot water and the chickpeas removed to a steam heated jam pan. Water was added to the jam pan until the water covered the chickpeas.

[0482] In this example, (b) heating the material of (a) in aqueous medium to a temperature of 75 to 105 C. comprises: [0483] 4. The jam pan was heated until the water was in excess of 95 C. and this temperature (5 C.) was retained for at least 45-90 minutes. [0484] 5. Once the peas were cooked the cooking liquor was drained off and the peas washed in cold water until they reached a temperature below 60 C. Water was then added to the peas at a ratio of 1 part soaked peas to 4 part water.

[0485] In this example, (c) physically disrupting the material of (b) comprises: [0486] 6. The chickpeas were then homogenised using a stick blender to form a viscous paste and this stored in sealed plastic containers with minimum air space. This paste was stored for between 12 and 30 hours before use in the separators.

[0487] In this example, (d) processing the physically disrupted material of (c) to enrich for cells and/or cell clusters comprises: [0488] 7. The pastes were transferred to vibratory separators (Virto VP1) fitted with sieves of different screen sizes. The paste was added to the top deck that had a sieve size of approximately 425 m. Water was used to assist in washing the chickpea paste through this screen. The outer seed coats were retained by this sieve. [0489] 8. The washed material that had passed through the initial sieve was then was screened with a sieve of approximately 150 m. The material retained by this screen was referred to as the chickpea cell material. The materials passing through was the excess water, broken cell fragments and starches released from broken cells.

[0490] In this example, (e) drying the enriched material (sieved material) of (d) comprises: [0491] 9. The chickpea material was spread onto sheets so that the thickness was not in excess of 1 cm and then placed in a forced air oven at 80 C. After one hour the partially dry material was mixed and spread out once again. The material was dried until it had reached a moisture content of approximately 10%. This is the whole chickpea cell powder. [0492] Optionally: [0493] 10. The whole chickpea cell powder could be subsequently ground to form powders of the required particles sizes. The size range 200-350 m was often found to be optimal.

Example 7Summary of Comparative Data

[0494] Several of the figures provided show comparative data illustrating technical differences/advantages over prior art products. This is made clear in the figure legends below. The product of the invention is occasionally referred to as cell powder herein.

[0495] FIG. 1: The tendency of dry tissue to fracture (A) leads to greater cell rupture and release of cellular contents (i.e. starch) which is readily digested (i.e. by amylase into maltodextrins). The tendency of tissues to separate (B), as is the case with hydrated cooked pulses, enables cellular integrity to be preserved, such that the encapsulated starch is not accessible for digestion by amylase.

[0496] FIG. 2. Physical appearance (A) and microstructure of cell powders (B) and flour (C) viewed on a light microscope under polarised light.

[0497] FIG. 3. Starch digestibility of cell powder materials from chickpeas compared to boiled commercially-milled chickpea flour and light micrographs showing typical appearance of flour (A) and cell powder (B) after digestion.

[0498] FIG. 4: Starch digestibility of cell powders prepared from various botanical sources compared with boiled chickpea flour.

[0499] FIG. 5: Starch digestibility of cell powders compared to commercially-milled flour and prior art material as reported by different workers (Oyman and Tosh). It should be noted that this figure is based on the data reported in prior art and is the most direct comparison possible. Starch digestibility data was based on percent digested at 90 min, or 100% resistant starch. Data were normalised to the internal reference material (i.e. flour or crushed cells). Where more than one data point was available, the highest value for percent starch digested was used.

Example 8In Vivo Study

[0500] Overview: In this example we show a human dietary study. In vivo data is generated as part of a human dietary intervention study. This demonstrates some of the nutritional properties (e.g. effects on glycaemia and insulinaemia and appetite) of the product of the invention. Ethical approval has been obtained. The study design is a randomised controlled trial in which healthy participants receive nutritionally matched test meals (hummus made from cell powder vs. flour) on separate occasions. Postprandial blood glucose and insulin responses are monitored for up to 4 h after the meal.

Study Outline

[0501] A randomised cross over trial of 15 healthy male participants was designed to compare the postprandial effects of 3 test meals containing 26.8 g starch, provided as a hummus meal containing the ingredient (product according to the invention), known flour or canned chickpeas. Postprandial blood glucose and insulin responses were primary outcomes, with gut hormone responses and appetite scores a secondary outcomes. Blood samples and analysis was performed as described in Edwards et al 2015 Amer J Clin Nutr 102:791-800.

[0502] We refer to FIG. 7 which shows low glycaemic effects: In vivo data from 15 healthy male participants showing the average incremental postprandial blood glucose response to a test meal (25 g starch) made with the ingredient (product according to the invention) as the carbohydrate source. The experimental data is plotted together with published data from a different cohort showing the glycaemic response (n=8) to a matched carbohydrate load, provided as a 25 g glucose solution (Lee & Wolever, 1998, Europ J Clin Nutr 52:924-928). Error bars show standard error of the mean.

[0503] Key results: The study demonstrated that when the ingredient (product according to the invention) was fed as part of this meal, a low glycaemic response was observed.

Example 9Comparative Example

[0504] Spray drying is not suitable for use in the invention. Prior art spray drying of the material can make the cells porous and/or disrupt the cells so that they are no longer intact. This is a drawback of prior art approaches such as disclosed in Tosh et al. 2013.

[0505] Prior art spray drying causes increased porosity and increased rate of starch digestion. We refer to FIG. 9 (spray driednot part of the inventioncomparative evidence). FIG. 9 shows Scanning Electron Micrographs of spray dried chickpea paste recovered from A) Cyclone and B) Main Chamber. Pores are clearly evident in the cell walls from the cyclone. Specimen preparation: Powder was mounted to SEM stubs via sticky tabs and gold-coated for 50 sec (no fixation or dehydration as the sample was already dry).

[0506] By contrast, the excellent intact material of the invention may be seen in FIG. 8 (inventionno spray drying).

Example 10: Exemplary Drying Step

[0507] In this example, the plant material is chickpea and the material of (d) is chickpea paste. In this example, (e) drying the material (enriched/sieved material) of (d) comprises:

[0508] Roller drying was performed by loading chickpea paste onto double-drum roller (dimensions of each drum: length=300 mm, radius=150 mm, and a 250 m separation gap with a nip to blade angle 180) at a rotation speed 2.62 rpm (23 s/revolution) and steam pressure 1 bar over atmospheric to achieve a drying time of 11 s.

[0509] In this example the roller-dryer was a 2 drum drier, supplier: Tummers (Simon Dryers) Ltd (Colwick Industrial Estate, Nottingham, NG4 2BD, England, UK).

Further Examples of Drying

[0510] In one example, when drying plant cell material over an area of 41 m2/h, and with a feed rate of 15 kg/h a drying rate of 11 kg/h was achieved.

[0511] Greater efficiency is likely to be achieved, for example, with higher pressure and faster roller speed, so that a feed rate of 45 kg/h could potentially dry 30 kg of cell paste per hour.

[0512] Limits of operation will be known to the skilled worker paying attention to the guidance provided herein, but in case any further direction is needed, it should be noted that [0513] roller drying will not work if misconfigured so that the gap between the drums is smaller than the cell dimensions (because the cells will be crushed between the rollers); [0514] roller drying will not work if misconfigured so that the steam pressure is so high that the paste boils at the nip.

[0515] ADVANTAGE/EVIDENCE: A high proportion of intact cells and starch resistance (c90=<30%, similar rate of digestion to oven-dried batches) was observed when this protocol was used.

Example 11: Exemplary Foodstuffs

[0516] The product of the invention finds application as an ingredient in foodstuffs. For example the product has been included as a wheat flour displacer in foodstuffs that are commonly prepared with wheat flour.

[0517] A proportion of the wheat flour (various doses ranging from 10 to 90% w/w) has been substituted with product of the invention (in this example when the plant material is chickpea) in the following products: Loaf bread, muffin, scone, chemically-leavened and yeast-leavened flat breads

[0518] In addition a 100% substitution of wheat or oat flour with product of the invention has been achieved in biscuits, cupcakes, flat bread and cookies.

[0519] Light and confocal microscopy of baked products confirmed that the cellular integrity was retained in the final end-product, and that Type 1 RS was present even after secondary processing.

[0520] This is evidenced in FIG. 10, which shows light micrographs showing intact plant cells present in baked loaf bread in which 30% wheat flour was displaced with chickpea powder. A) Bread crumb: Cellular structures are evident in matrix surrounding bubble structures; B) Bread crust: Cellular structures are evident amongst native wheat starch granules; C) Bread crumb: Observed bi-refringence (crystallinity) varies between cells; D) Bread crumb: Cell wall and partially swollen starch granules

[0521] Foodstuffs comprising the product of the invention were demonstrated to be digested more slowly compared with the original prior art wheat-flour product. This is associated with an increase in resistant starch (RS90) and a lower predicted Glycaemic Index.

[0522] This is evidenced in FIGS. 11A and 11B for loaf bread.

[0523] FIG. 11A shows that substituting % (w/w) of wheat flour with chickpea ingredient increases resistant starch and reduces starch digestibility and thereby predicted GI.

[0524] FIG. 11B has been updated to reflect additional data which takes into account exact moisture content of food product when analysed (most accurate values).

[0525] Thus FIG. 11B shows starch digestibility curves of loaf breads in which 0, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 90% of the wheat bread flour has been substituted with product according to the present invention (in this example prepared from chickpea). Starch digestibility values are the mean of at least triplicate analyses with standard deviation and have been adjusted to exclude endogenous reducing sugars present at baseline. Starch in loaf bread becomes less digestible and more resistant to digestion as the proportion of wheat flour that is substituted with product according to the present invention (in this example chickpea flour) increases.

[0526] An informal sensory panel test found that the resulting products had acceptable sensory attributes (just about right analysis), and enriched products were not beany, nor metallic.

[0527] Below is a table with sensory responses when informal panel tasted products in which 100% of wheat was displaced with product according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea). These are the same products that are shown in Table B.

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE A Responses from taste test of biscuit (cookie) and cake recipe in which 100% of the wheat flour has been substituted with chickpea ingredient. 100% substitution 100% substitution Cookie Recipe Cupcake Recipe Crumbly, short Nobody guessed they were texture all Gluten Free. Slightly dry around Or that they were made the edges with a Chickpea derivative. Nice gooey centre No-one guessed they were Gluten Free.

[0528] We refer to FIG. 15. Products were scored by an informal panel (n=15) based on overall liking, aroma, colour, flavour, saltiness, oiliness, texture. The average hedonic score is given below, on a scoring scale where 1=dislike extremely and 9=like extremely). The best performing products were the 40% Loaf bread and muffin in which 40% of the wheat flour had been displaced with product according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea), and all foodstuff products scored above the median. A preference test evaluated sensory attributes for aroma (cheesy, beany, metallic), texture (hard, dry, doughy, oily) and flavour (saltiness, sweetness, cheesiness, bitterness, metallic), and the penalty scores associated with these attributes were low (<2) based on responses from Just about Right analysis, with no changes need to the formulation of the 40% bread/muffin.

[0529] In addition to the taste test (Table A and FIG. 15), we present nutrient composition of 100% substituted cupcake, flatbread and cookie (Table B).

[0530] This also represents Comparative Examples since the foodstuffs of the invention are compared to prior art (wheat flour) foodstuffs.

[0531] (Note CHO is an abbreviation for carbohydrate)

[0532] In formulations where wheat is the only source of gluten (such as foodstuff products shown in Table B), replacing all wheat with product according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea) results in a gluten-free product. The products shown in Table A represent food products that have been prepared and used in an informal sensory panel, where participants did not guess that these products were gluten-free.

[0533] Table B shows effect of substituting wheat flour with product according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea) on overall nutrient composition of food products. For the cookie, cupcake and flatbread recipes, replacing all wheat with the product according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea) reduces the starch (and therefore carbohydrate) content and increases dietary fibre content.

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE B CUPCAKE COOKIE 100% FLATBREAD 100% 0% 100% of wheat 0% 100% 0% 100% of wheat Wheat substituted Wheat 100% of wheat Wheat substituted with (prior with (prior substituted with (prior art) Ingredient art) Ingredient art) Ingredient Energy 1993.4 2277.9 2053.4 2052.1 1814.6 1811.7 (kJ/100 g dry matter) Energy 476.4 544.4 490.8 490.4 433.7 433.0 (kcal/100 g dry matter) Protein 12.8 8.6 27.4 28.9 34.0 37.3 (g/100 g dry matter) Fat 17.3 32.4 22.6 23.7 12.5 14.8 (g/100 g dry matter) CHO 69.4 56.5 48.3 41.7 47.8 33.5 (g/100 g dry matter) of which Starch 47.6 18.2 19.3 12.9 47.5 33.4 (g/100 g dry matter) of which Sugar 21.6 36.3 27.4 27.3 0.3 0.1 (g/100 g dry matter) Fibre 2.7 4.8 0.9 3.3 2.8 7.9 (g/100 g dry matter) Moisture 0 0 0 0 0 0 (g/100 g dry matter) Key points 19% less CHO 14% less CHO 30% less CHO and 45% more and 71% more and 64% more dietary fiber dietary fiber dietary fiber than with than with than with wheat wheat wheat

Example 12: Cell CountingIntact/Broken cells

[0534] Product was prepared in various batches as described in example 6.

[0535] Intact/Broken cells were analysed using the Cell Counting ProtocolLaser Diffraction Methodology as described above.

[0536] We refer to FIG. 12.

[0537] FIG. 12 shows the proportion of intact and broken cells in product of the invention (in this example chickpea powder) across various different preparations. Particles 50 m and 250 m intact cells and <50 m broken cells.

Example 13: Further Exemplary Foodstuffs

[0538] This example also presents Comparative Examples since the foodstuffs of the invention are compared to prior art (wheat flour) foodstuffs.

[0539] Product application LOAF BREAD (as referred to in Table C): Displacement of white wheat bread flour with product according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea) in loaf bread formulations is associated with reduction in loaf specific volume and increase in brownness of the crust (FIG. 16).

[0540] An example of the effect of displacing different proportions of the wheat flour with product according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea) in a Yeasted Flatbread (dose-response) is given in Table C. These products have also been analysed for starch digestibility, and would be expected to have a low glycaemic index at the lowest dose tested (i.e. 30% substitution of wheat flour in this example).

[0541] Table C shows the effect of substituting different proportions of the wheat flour with product according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea) on nutrient composition of a flatbread food product. The effect is dose-dependent and improvements in starch and fibre content are evident even when only 30% of the wheat is displaced by product according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea).

[0542] We refer also to FIG. 17.

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE C YEASTED FLATBREAD 0% 30% 60% 90% Energy 1402.2 1216.6 1154.2 815.0 (kJ/100 g baked) Energy 335.1 290.8 275.9 194.8 (kcal/100 g baked) Protein 14.0 13.5 15.3 8.7 (g/100 g baked) Fat 3.8 4.6 5.5 4.8 (g/100 g baked) CHO 58.4 45.2 36.4 25.5 (g/100 g baked) of which Starch 55.6 43.0 34.5 24.1 (g/100 g baked) of which Sugar 2.6 2.1 1.8 1.3 (g/100 g baked) of which Fibre 3.0 5.0 6.9 6.3 (g/100 g baked) Moisture 19.5 30.4 34.4 53.6 (g/100 g baked) Starch Hydrolysis 44.9 2.8 18 9.6 14.7 1.7 27.9 1.7 Index (C90, mean sd) Key points (wheat 23% less 38% less 56% less only) CHO and CHO and CHO and 41% 57% 53% more more more fiber fiber fiber than than than pure pure pure wheat wheat wheat product product product

[0543] Another example of the dose-response relationship in loaf bread is given in Table D. The nutritional benefits increase as greater proportions of the wheat flour are substituted with product according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea). At the lowest dose (30% substitution of wheat with product according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea)), the fibre content is greatly improved compared to wheat bread. The reduction in starch hydrolysis index (C90) is associated with a lower expected glycaemic index, and is particularly evident when higher proportions of the wheat flour is substituted with product according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea).

[0544] Table D shows the effect of substituting wheat flour in white loaf bread with different doses of product according to the present invention (in this example from chickpea).

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE D LOAF BREAD (g/100 g baked) 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 90% Energy 1031.21 1116.95 856.70 864.72 805.84 953.72 (kJ/100 g baked) Energy 246.46 266.95 204.75 206.67 192.60 227.94 (kcal/100 g baked) Protein 10.29 12.39 10.65 11.79 10.70 10.13 (g/100 g baked) Fat 2.81 4.22 3.55 3.83 3.87 5.61 (g/100 g baked) CHO 42.92 41.47 29.55 27.92 25.43 29.82 (g/100 g baked) of which Starch 40.88 39.44 27.27 25.62 24.08 28.17 (g/100 g baked) of which Sugar 1.94 1.91 2.19 2.20 1.26 1.52 (g/100 g baked) Fibre 2.18 4.64 4.15 4.62 4.84 7.42 (g/100 g baked) Moisture 40.80 36.10 51.20 50.90 54.20 45.70 (g/100 g baked) Starch Hydrolysis 56.7 3.33 52.0 6.3 47.0 3.72 48. 3.84 35.8 2.85 24.7 3.42 Index (C90 mean sd) 3% less CHO 31% less CHO 35% less CHO 41% less CHO 31% less CHO and 53% and 47% and 53% and 55% and 71% more fiber more fiber more fiber more fiber more fiber than pure than pure than pure than pure than pure wheat product wheat product wheat product wheat product wheat product