1.
Prediction of postprandial glycemia and insulinemia in lean, young, healthy adults: glycemic load compared with carbohydrate content alone.
Bao, J, Atkinson, F, Petocz, P, Willett, WC, Brand-Miller, JC
The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2011;(5):984-96
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dietary glycemic load (GL; defined as the mathematical product of the glycemic index and carbohydrate content) is increasingly used in nutritional epidemiology. Its ability to predict postprandial glycemia and insulinemia for a wide range of foods or mixed meals is unclear. OBJECTIVE Our objective was to assess the degree of association between calculated GL and observed glucose and insulin responses in healthy subjects consuming isoenergetic portions of single foods and mixed meals. DESIGN In study 1, groups of healthy subjects consumed 1000-kJ portions of 121 single foods in 10 food categories. In study 2, healthy subjects consumed 2000-kJ servings of 13 mixed meals. Foods and meals varied widely in macronutrient content, fiber, and GL. Glycemia and insulinemia were quantified as area under the curve relative to a reference food (= 100). RESULTS Among the single foods, GL was a more powerful predictor of postprandial glycemia and insulinemia than was the available carbohydrate content, explaining 85% and 59% of the observed variation, respectively (P < 0.001). Similarly, for mixed meals, GL was also the strongest predictor of postprandial glucose and insulin responses, explaining 58% (P = 0.003) and 46% (P = 0.01) of the variation, respectively. Carbohydrate content alone predicted the glucose and insulin responses to single foods (P < 0.001) but not to mixed meals. CONCLUSION These findings provide the first large-scale, systematic evidence of the physiologic validity and superiority of dietary GL over carbohydrate content alone to estimate postprandial glycemia and insulin demand in healthy individuals. This trial was registered at ANZCTR.org as ACTRN12610000484044.
2.
Measuring the glycemic index of foods: interlaboratory study.
Wolever, TM, Brand-Miller, JC, Abernethy, J, Astrup, A, Atkinson, F, Axelsen, M, Björck, I, Brighenti, F, Brown, R, Brynes, A, et al
The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2008;(1):247S-257S
-
-
Free full text
-
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.