| 1. |
- Augustin, L S A, et al.
(author)
-
Glycemic index, glycemic load and glycemic response: An International Scientific Consensus Summit from the International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC).
- 2015
-
In: Nutrition Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases. - : Elsevier BV. - 1590-3729 .- 0939-4753. ; 25:9, s. 795-815
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background and aims: The positive and negative health effects of dietary carbohydrates are of interest to both researchers and consumers. Methods: International experts on carbohydrate research held a scientific summit in Stresa, Italy, in June 2013 to discuss controversies surrounding the utility of the glycemic index (GI), glycemic load (GL) and glycemic response (GR). Results: The outcome was a scientific consensus statement which recognized the importance of postprandial glycemia in overall health, and the GI as a valid and reproducible method of classifying carbohydrate foods for this purpose. There was consensus that diets low in GI and GL were relevant to the prevention and management of diabetes and coronary heart disease, and probably obesity. Moderate to weak associations were observed for selected cancers. The group affirmed that diets low in GI and GL should always be considered in the context of diets otherwise understood as healthy, complementing additional ways of characterizing carbohydrate foods, such as fiber and whole grain content. Diets of low GI and GL were considered particularly important in individuals with insulin resistance. Conclusions: Given the high prevalence of diabetes and pre-diabetes worldwide and the consistency of the scientific evidence reviewed, the expert panel confirmed an urgent need to communicate information on GI and GL to the general public and health professionals, through channels such as national dietary guidelines, food composition tables and food labels.
|
|
| 2. |
- Wolever, Thomas M S, et al.
(author)
-
Measuring the glycemic index of foods: interlaboratory study.
- 2008
-
In: The American journal of clinical nutrition. - 0002-9165 .- 1938-3207. ; 87:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Wolever, T M S, et al.
(author)
-
Determination of the glycaemic index of foods: interlaboratory study.
- 2003
-
In: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-5640 .- 0954-3007. ; 57:3, s. 475-482
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: Practical use of the glycaemic index (GI), as recommended by the FAO/WHO, requires an evaluation of the recommended method. Our purpose was to determine the magnitude and sources of variation of the GI values obtained by experienced investigators in different international centres. Design: GI values of four centrally provided foods (instant potato, rice, spaghetti and barley) and locally obtained white bread were determined in 8-12 subjects in each of seven centres using the method recommended by FAO/WHO. Data analysis was performed centrally. Setting: University departments of nutrition. Healthy subjects (28 male, 40 female) were studied. Results: The GI values of the five foods did not vary significantly in different centres nor was there a significant centre´food interaction. Within-subject variation from two centres using venous blood was twice that from five centres using capillary blood. The s.d. of centre mean GI values was reduced from 10.6 (range 6.8-12.8) to 9.0 (range 4.8-12.6) by excluding venous blood data. GI values were not significantly related to differences in method of glucose measurement or subject characteristics (age, sex, BMI, ethnicity or absolute glycaemic response). GI values for locally obtained bread were no more variable than those for centrally provided foods. Conclusions: The GI values of foods are more precisely determined using capillary than venous blood sampling, with mean between-laboratory s.d. of approximately 9.0. Finding ways to reduce within-subject variation of glycaemic responses may be the most effective strategy to improve the precision of measurement of GI values.
|
|
| 4. |
- Brouns, F, et al.
(author)
-
Glycaemic index methodology
- 2005
-
In: Nutrition Research Reviews. - 0954-4224. ; 18:1, s. 145-171
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The glycaemic index (GI) concept was originally introduced to classify different sources of carbohydrate (CHO)-rich foods, usually having an energy content of > 80 % from CHO, to their effect on post-meal glycaemia. It was assumed to apply to foods that primarily deliver available CHO, causing hyperglycaemia. Low-GI foods were classified as being digested and absorbed slowly and high-GI foods as being rapidly digested and absorbed, resulting in different glycaemic responses. Low-GI foods were found to induce benefits on certain risk factors for CVD and diabetes. Accordingly it has been proposed that GI classification of foods and drinks could be useful to help consumers make 'healthy food choices' within specific food groups. Classification of foods according to their impact on blood glucose responses requires a standardised way of measuring such responses. The present review discusses the most relevant methodological considerations and highlights specific recommendations regarding number of subjects, sex, subject status, inclusion and exclusion criteria, pre-test conditions, CHO test dose, blood sampling procedures, sampling times, test randomisation and calculation of glycaemic response area under the curve. All together, these technical recommendations will help to implement or reinforce measurement of GI in laboratories and help to ensure quality of results. Since there is current international interest in alternative ways of expressing glycaemic responses to foods, some of these methods are discussed.
|
|
