A Diabetes-Specific Oral Nutritional Supplement for Prediabetes Improves Postprandial Glycemic Response

The Glycemic Numbers Are Hard to Ignore

If you formulate for prediabetes, postprandial glucose is where products win or fail. A new study tested a diabetes-specific nutritional formula (DSNF) with allulose against a standard oral nutritional supplement (ONS). The result was not subtle.

The DSNF produced a postprandial glucose iAUC of 1,683.49. The standard ONS produced 4,455.92. That is roughly 62% lower. The difference reached P<0.0001.

Why This Matters for Product Development

Standard ONS products are built around readily available carbohydrate. They work well for many patients, but not necessarily for someone with prediabetes. The study, published in Nutrition Research and Practice (DOI: 10.4162/nrp.2025.19.6.904), compared a 200 mL serving of each product.

In that serving, the DSNF contained 3 g of allulose. The standard product contained none. Available carbohydrate in the DSNF was also lower.

Those two changes are what food formulators need to study.

What the Study Did

The researchers measured postprandial glucose response in people with prediabetes. The main comparison was incremental area under the curve, or iAUC. That captures the full glucose response after the drink, not just one blood glucose reading.

The products differed in composition. Allulose was the obvious standout.

Key Findings

The results are straightforward.

Measure	DSNF (allulose formula)	Standard ONS
Allulose per 200 mL	3 g	0 g
Available carbohydrate	Lower	Higher
Postprandial glucose iAUC	1,683.49	4,455.92
P value	<0.0001	Reference

The authors attribute the response to allulose through three mechanisms. Allulose inhibits glucose absorption in the gut. It stimulates GLP-1 release. And it promotes glycogen storage in the liver. Those are not abstract concepts. They matter directly to someone with impaired glucose control.

What This Means for Manufacturers

For ingredient buyers, the practical signal is clear. A 3 g dose of allulose in a 200 mL serving is enough to move a clinically relevant endpoint. You do not need to hide allulose in a tiny functional shot. You can work with it in a complete nutritional drink.

This is also a formulation case study. The DSNF differed in available carbohydrate, not just allulose. So the finished product effect reflects the whole matrix. The paper’s discussion links the outcome to allulose’s known mechanisms, which gives you a rationale for including it. Still, do not isolate one factor and overstate it. The tested product was the combination.

For anyone sourcing allulose, this study gives you a specific benchmark. 3 g per 200 mL. That is the inclusion level to test first.

Questions from Formulators

How much allulose did the study use?

3 g per 200 mL.

Was allulose the only reason for the lower glucose response?

The DSNF had lower available carbohydrate than the standard ONS. The study did not test allulose in isolation. The authors explain the result through allulose-related mechanisms, but the evidence is product-level.

Can I use this data for a powder or bar?

Use it as a starting point. The trial was run with a 200 mL oral nutritional product. Format changes digestion and glucose response. You need your own formulation and ideally your own clinical evidence.

The clinical gap between the two products is too large to ignore. For a prediabetes product, a 62% lower glucose excursion is exactly the kind of benefit that builds trust with clinicians and consumers. Start with the 3 g per 200 mL benchmark, build a clean formula around it, and verify the finished product. That is how this paper becomes useful outside the journal.