| 1. |
- Krog-Mikkelsen, Inger, et al.
(författare)
-
A Low Glycemic Index Diet Does Not Affect Postprandial Energy Metabolism but Decreases Postprandial Insulinemia and Increases Fullness Ratings in Healthy Women
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of Nutrition. - : Elsevier BV. - 1541-6100 .- 0022-3166. ; 141:9, s. 1679-1684
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- At present, it is difficult to determine whether glycemic index (GI) is an important tool in the prevention of lifestyle diseases, and long-term studies investigating GI with diets matched in macronutrient composition, fiber content, energy content, and energy density are still scarce. We investigated the effects of 2 high-carbohydrate (55%) diets with low GI (LGI; 79) or high GI (HGI; 103) on postprandial blood profile, subjective appetite sensations, energy expenditure (EE), substrate oxidation rates, and ad libitum energy intake (El) from a corresponding test meal (LGI or HGI) after consuming the diets ad libitum for 10 wk. Two groups of a total of 29 healthy, overweight women (age: 30.5 +/- 6.6 y; BMI: 27.6 +/- 1.5 kg/m(2)) participated in the 10-wk intervention and a subsequent 4-h meal test. The breakfast test meals differed in GI but were equal in total energy, macronutrient composition, fiber content, and energy density. The LGI meal resulted in lower plasma glucose, serum insulin, and plasma glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 and higher plasma glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide concentrations than the HGI meal (P <= 0.05). Ratings of fullness were slightly higher and the desire to eat something fatty was lower after the test meal in the LGI group (P < 0.05). Postprandial plasma GLP-2, plasma glucagon, serum leptin, plasma ghrelin, EE, substrate oxidation rates, and ad libitum El at lunch did not differ between groups. In conclusion, postprandial glycemia, insulinemia, and subjective appetite ratings after a test meal were better after 10-wk ad libitum intake of a LGI compared to a HGI diet. EE and substrate oxidation rates were, however, not affected. These findings give some support to recommendations to consume a LGI diet. J. Nutr. 141: 1679-1684, 2011.
|
|
| 2. |
- 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
-
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.
|
|
