| 1. |
- van Bakel, M. M. E., et al.
(författare)
-
Dietary glycaemic index and glycaemic load in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition
- 2009
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-5640 .- 0954-3007. ; 63:4s, s. 188-205
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To describe dietary glycaemic index (GI) and glycaemic load (GL) values in the population participating in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study according to food groups, nutrients and lifestyle characteristics. Methods: Single 24-h dietary recalls (24-HDRs) from 33 566 subjects were used to calculate dietary GI and GL, and an ad hoc database was created as the main reference source. Mean GI and GL intakes were adjusted for age, total energy intake, height and weight, and were weighted by season and day of recall. Results: GI was the lowest in Spain and Germany, and highest in the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Denmark for both genders. In men, GL was the lowest in Spain and Germany and highest in Italy, whereas in women, it was the lowest in Spain and Greece and highest in the UK health-conscious cohort. Bread was the largest contributor to GL in all centres (15-45%), but it also showed the largest inter-individual variation. GL, but not GI, tended to be lower in the highest body mass index category in both genders. GI was positively correlated with starch and intakes of bread and potatoes, whereas it was correlated negatively with intakes of sugar, fruit and dairy products. GL was positively correlated with all carbohydrate components and intakes of cereals, whereas it was negatively correlated with fat and alcohol and with intakes of wine, with large variations across countries. Conclusions: GI means varied modestly across countries and genders, whereas GL means varied more, but it may possibly act as a surrogate of carbohydrate intake. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2009) 63, S188-S205; doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2009.81
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
