1.
Glycemic index, glycemic load and glycemic response: An International Scientific Consensus Summit from the International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC).
Augustin, LSA, Kendall, CWC, Jenkins, DJA, Willett, WC, Astrup, A, Barclay, AW, Björck, I, Brand-Miller, JC, Brighenti, F, Buyken, AE, et al
Nutrition, metabolism, and cardiovascular diseases : NMCD. 2015;(9):795-815
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.
The role of reducing intakes of saturated fat in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: where does the evidence stand in 2010?
Astrup, A, Dyerberg, J, Elwood, P, Hermansen, K, Hu, FB, Jakobsen, MU, Kok, FJ, Krauss, RM, Lecerf, JM, LeGrand, P, et al
The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2011;(4):684-8
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Current dietary recommendations advise reducing the intake of saturated fatty acids (SFAs) to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, but recent findings question the role of SFAs. This expert panel reviewed the evidence and reached the following conclusions: the evidence from epidemiologic, clinical, and mechanistic studies is consistent in finding that the risk of CHD is reduced when SFAs are replaced with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). In populations who consume a Western diet, the replacement of 1% of energy from SFAs with PUFAs lowers LDL cholesterol and is likely to produce a reduction in CHD incidence of ≥2-3%. No clear benefit of substituting carbohydrates for SFAs has been shown, although there might be a benefit if the carbohydrate is unrefined and has a low glycemic index. Insufficient evidence exists to judge the effect on CHD risk of replacing SFAs with MUFAs. No clear association between SFA intake relative to refined carbohydrates and the risk of insulin resistance and diabetes has been shown. The effect of diet on a single biomarker is insufficient evidence to assess CHD risk. The combination of multiple biomarkers and the use of clinical endpoints could help substantiate the effects on CHD. Furthermore, the effect of particular foods on CHD cannot be predicted solely by their content of total SFAs because individual SFAs may have different cardiovascular effects and major SFA food sources contain other constituents that could influence CHD risk. Research is needed to clarify the role of SFAs compared with specific forms of carbohydrates in CHD risk and to compare specific foods with appropriate alternatives.