Evidence Hub

A Comparison of the Interstitial and Blood Glucose Responses Following Consumption of Different Carbohydrate-Containing Beverages in Humans: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Hamilton R, Bain SC, Bracken RM

Nutrients, 2026

Abstract

Objectives: This study investigated the relationship between interstitial and blood glucose concentrations following ingestion of carbohydrate-containing drinks differing in carbohydrate amount, osmolarity, and glycaemic index.

Methods: Ten healthy adults (nine male; age: 22 ± 1 y; height: 177 ± 12 cm; weight: 75 ± 14 kg) completed a double-blind, randomised cross-over study with seven beverage trials varying in carbohydrate (CHO) characteristics. Blood samples were collected at rest and over two hours, while interstitial glucose ([iG]) was recorded using a continuous glucose monitor (Supersapiens, Atlanta, USA). Glycaemic metrics and mean absolute relative difference (MARD) were calculated for hypoglycaemic, euglycaemic, and hyperglycaemic ranges. Data were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction and paired t-tests (p ≤ 0.05).

Results: Interstitial and blood glucose concentrations were similar at baseline but diverged post-ingestion. MARD varied by glucose rate and direction, exceeding 20% during rapid declines (>2 mg/dL/min), where [iG] underestimated [BG] by -7.3 ± 27.1 mg/dL. Accuracy was highest during stable glucose (MARD = 10.5 ± 8.6%). Carbohydrate amount and glycaemic index influenced peak glucose, whereas beverage concentration (5-20%) had minimal effect when CHO amount was fixed, though variation in CGM agreement appeared during post-peak declines.

Conclusions: CGM tracked blood glucose overall but showed reduced accuracy during rapid…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free