| 1. |
- Augustin, Livia S. A., et al.
(författare)
-
Dietary Fibre Consensus from the International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC)
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nutrients. - : MDPI. - 2072-6643. ; 12:9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Dietary fibre is a generic term describing non-absorbed plant carbohydrates and small amounts of associated non-carbohydrate components. The main contributors of fibre to the diet are the cell walls of plant tissues, which are supramolecular polymer networks containing variable proportions of cellulose, hemicelluloses, pectic substances, and non-carbohydrate components, such as lignin. Other contributors of fibre are the intracellular storage oligosaccharides, such as fructans. A distinction needs to be made between intrinsic sources of dietary fibre and purified forms of fibre, given that the three-dimensional matrix of the plant cell wall confers benefits beyond fibre isolates. Movement through the digestive tract modifies the cell wall structure and may affect the interactions with the colonic microbes (e.g., small intestinally non-absorbed carbohydrates are broken down by bacteria to short-chain fatty acids, absorbed by colonocytes). These aspects, combined with the fibre associated components (e.g., micronutrients, polyphenols, phytosterols, and phytoestrogens), may contribute to the health outcomes seen with the consumption of dietary fibre. Therefore, where possible, processing should minimise the degradation of the plant cell wall structures to preserve some of its benefits. Food labelling should include dietary fibre values and distinguish between intrinsic and added fibre. Labelling may also help achieve the recommended intake of 14 g/1000 kcal/day.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Livesey, Geoffrey, et al.
(författare)
-
Dietary Glycemic Index and Load and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes : A Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analyses of Prospective Cohort Studies
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Nutrients. - : MDPI AG. - 2072-6643. ; 11:6
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Published meta-analyses indicate significant but inconsistent incident type-2 diabetes(T2D)-dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) risk ratios or risk relations (RR). It is nowover a decade ago that a published meta-analysis used a predefined standard to identify validstudies. Considering valid studies only, and using random effects dose-response meta-analysis(DRM) while withdrawing spurious results (p < 0.05), we ascertained whether these relationswould support nutrition guidance, specifically for an RR > 1.20 with a lower 95% confidence limit>1.10 across typical intakes (approximately 10th to 90th percentiles of population intakes). Thecombined T2D-GI RR was 1.27 (1.15-1.40) (p < 0.001, n = 10 studies) per 10 units GI, while that forthe T2D-GL RR was 1.26 (1.15-1.37) (p < 0.001, n = 15) per 80 g/d GL in a 2000 kcal (8400 kJ) diet.The corresponding global DRM using restricted cubic splines were 1.87 (1.56-2.25) (p < 0.001, n =10) and 1.89 (1.66-2.16) (p < 0.001, n = 15) from 47.6 to 76.1 units GI and 73 to 257 g/d GL in a 2000kcal diet, respectively. In conclusion, among adults initially in good health, diets higher in GI or GLwere robustly associated with incident T2D. Together with mechanistic and other data, thissupports that consideration should be given to these dietary risk factors in nutrition advice.Concerning the public health relevance at the global level, our evidence indicates that GI and GLare substantial food markers predicting the development of T2D worldwide, for persons ofEuropean ancestry and of East Asian ancestry.
|
|
| 4. |
- Livesey, Geoffrey, et al.
(författare)
-
Dietary Glycemic Index and Load and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes : Assessment of Causal Relations
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Nutrients. - : MDPI AG. - 2072-6643. ; 11:6
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- While dietary factors are important modifiable risk factors for type 2 diabetes (T2D), the causal role of carbohydrate quality in nutrition remains controversial. Dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) have been examined in relation to the risk of T2D in multiple prospective cohort studies. Previous meta-analyses indicate significant relations but consideration of causality has been minimal. Here, the results of our recent meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies of 4 to 26-y follow-up are interpreted in the context of the nine Bradford-Hill criteria for causality, that is: (1) Strength of Association, (2) Consistency, (3) Specificity, (4) Temporality, (5) Biological Gradient, (6) Plausibility, (7) Experimental evidence, (8) Analogy, and (9) Coherence. These criteria necessitated referral to a body of literature wider than prospective cohort studies alone, especially in criteria 6 to 9. In this analysis, all nine of the Hill's criteria were met for GI and GL indicating that we can be confident of a role for GI and GL as causal factors contributing to incident T2D. In addition, neither dietary fiber nor cereal fiber nor wholegrain were found to be reliable or effective surrogate measures of GI or GL. Finally, our cost-benefit analysis suggests food and nutrition advice favors lower GI or GL and would produce significant potential cost savings in national healthcare budgets. The high confidence in causal associations for incident T2D is sufficient to consider inclusion of GI and GL in food and nutrient-based recommendations.
|
|
| 5. |
- Wolever, Thomas M S, et al.
(författare)
-
Measuring the glycemic index of foods: interlaboratory study.
- 2008
-
Ingår i: The American journal of clinical nutrition. - 0002-9165 .- 1938-3207. ; 87:1, s. 247S-257S
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Many laboratories offer glycemic index (GI) services. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the performance of the method used to measure GI. DESIGN: The GI of cheese-puffs and fruit-leather (centrally provided) was measured in 28 laboratories (n=311 subjects) by using the FAO/WHO method. The laboratories reported the results of their calculations and sent the raw data for recalculation centrally. RESULTS: Values for the incremental area under the curve (AUC) reported by 54% of the laboratories differed from central calculations. Because of this and other differences in data analysis, 19% of reported food GI values differed by >5 units from those calculated centrally. GI values in individual subjects were unrelated to age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, or AUC but were negatively related to within-individual variation (P=0.033) expressed as the CV of the AUC for repeated reference food tests (refCV). The between-laboratory GI values (mean+/-SD) for cheese-puffs and fruit-leather were 74.3+/-10.5 and 33.2+/-7.2, respectively. The mean laboratory GI was related to refCV (P=0.003) and the type of restrictions on alcohol consumption before the test (P=0.006, r2=0.509 for model). The within-laboratory SD of GI was related to refCV (P<0.001), the glucose analysis method (P=0.010), whether glucose measures were duplicated (P=0.008), and restrictions on dinner the night before (P=0.013, r2=0.810 for model). CONCLUSIONS: The between-laboratory SD of the GI values is approximately 9. Standardized data analysis and low within-subject variation (refCV<30%) are required for accuracy. The results suggest that common misconceptions exist about which factors do and do not need to be controlled to improve precision. Controlled studies and cost-benefit analyses are needed to optimize GI methodology. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00260858.
|
|
