1.
White rice, brown rice and the risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Yu, J, Balaji, B, Tinajero, M, Jarvis, S, Khan, T, Vasudevan, S, Ranawana, V, Poobalan, A, Bhupathiraju, S, Sun, Q, et al
BMJ open. 2022;12(9):e065426
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
The prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has continued to increase worldwide, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. Since rice is a staple food in many cultures and is predominant in most Asian diets, it is hypothesised that improving diet quality by replacing white rice with brown rice could play an important role in the prevention of T2D. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between rice intake and the risk of T2D. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of nineteen studies – 8 cohort studies and 11 randomised controlled trials. Results from the meta-analyses of the cohort studies show a positive association between intake of white rice and risk of T2D. The associations were stronger in women compared with men. Additionally, brown rice was inversely associated with risk of T2D however, the results are based on limited data. Furthermore, the randomised controlled trials showed that the between-group difference in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was statistically significant in favour of the brown rice group. Authors conclude that replacing white rice with brown rice or other whole grains has the potential to be a low-cost and feasible lifestyle strategy to improve diet quality and help reduce T2D risk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Intake of white rice has been associated with elevated risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), while studies on brown rice are conflicting. To inform dietary guidance, we synthesised the evidence on white rice and brown rice with T2D risk. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched through November 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Prospective cohort studies of white and brown rice intake on T2D risk (≥1 year), and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing brown rice with white rice on cardiometabolic risk factors (≥2 weeks). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data were extracted by the primary reviewer and two additional reviewers. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models and reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for prospective cohort studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs. Strength of the meta-evidence was assessed using NutriGrade. RESULTS Nineteen articles were included: 8 cohort studies providing 18 estimates (white rice: 15 estimates, 25 956 cases, n=5 77 426; brown rice: 3 estimates, 10 507 cases, n=1 97 228) and 11 RCTs (n=1034). In cohort studies, white rice was associated with higher risk of T2D (pooled RR, 1.16; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.32) comparing extreme categories. At intakes above ~300 g/day, a dose-response was observed (each 158 g/day serving was associated with 13% (11%-15%) higher risk of T2D). Intake of brown rice was associated with lower risk of T2D (pooled RR, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.97) comparing extreme categories. Each 50 g/day serving of brown rice was associated with 13% (6%-20%) lower risk of T2D. Cohort studies were considered to be of good or fair quality. RCTs showed an increase in high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (0.06 mmol/L; 0.00 to 0.11 mmol/L) in the brown compared with white rice group. No other significant differences in risk factors were observed. The majority of RCTs were found to have some concern for risk of bias. Overall strength of the meta-evidence was moderate for cohort studies and moderate and low for RCTs. CONCLUSION Intake of white rice was associated with higher risk of T2D, while intake of brown rice was associated with lower risk. Findings from substitution trials on cardiometabolic risk factors were inconsistent. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42020158466.
2.
Positioning the Value of Dietary Carbohydrate, Carbohydrate Quality, Glycemic Index, and GI Labelling to the Canadian Consumer for Improving Dietary Patterns.
Marinangeli, CPF, Castellano, J, Torrance, P, Lewis, J, Gall Casey, C, Tanuta, J, Curran, J, Harding, SV, Jenkins, DJA, Sievenpiper, JL
Nutrients. 2019;11(2)
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Nutrition science dictates that carbohydrates are elements of a healthy diet. However, consumers have increasingly antagonistic feelings toward dietary carbohydrate as a cause of weight gain. The aim of this study was to understand Canadian consumers’ knowledge and perception of dietary carbohydrates, carbohydrate quality, and the glycaemic index. A secondary aim was to identify a strategy for positioning the glycaemic index as a consumer-facing labelling program. The study conducted focus groups with forty-seven individuals. The participants were recruited into three consumer segments (normal body weight, previously obese and overweight/obese). Results demonstrate that the focus groups interpreted ‘carbohydrate quality’ as the categorization of carbohydrate foods as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Additionally, Canadians were receptive to a labelling program that identifies carbohydrate food as having low glycaemic index. However, since low glycaemic index was perceived as a tool for diabetes management, low glycaemic labelling requires significant consumer education and adoption by industry. Authors conclude that glycaemic index could be used as a consumer-facing labelling program for Canadians and assist with de-stigmatizing carbohydrate foods.
Abstract
The objectives of this qualitative study was to: (1) understand Canadian consumers' knowledge and perception of dietary carbohydrates, carbohydrate quality, and the glycemic index (GI); and (2) determine Canadian's receptiveness to GI labelling to assist with identifying and consuming foods of higher carbohydrate quality. Focus groups were recruited in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal and grouped according to body mass index (BMI) (NBW, normal body weight; PO, previously obese; and OW/OB, overweight/obese) and diagnosis with prediabetes and diabetes (PO (Vancouver) and OW/OB (Montreal and Toronto). Subjects in all groups linked excess consumption of carbohydrate with weight gain. PO and OW/OB groups were conflicted between perceived negative consequences and feelings of pleasure associated with carbohydrate consumption. Subjects were largely unfamiliar with the term 'carbohydrate quality', but were often associated with classifying carbohydrates as 'good' or 'bad'. The concept of the GI resonated well across groups after exposure to corresponding educational materials. However, NBW groups largely felt that the GI was irrelevant to their dietary choices as they did not have a history of diabetes. PO and OW/OB groups associated the GI with diabetes management. The concept of a GI labelling program to help facilitate healthier carbohydrate choices was well received across all groups, especially when the low GI was interpreted as giving permission to consume foods they enjoyed eating. Results suggest that the GI could be used as a consumer-facing labelling program in Canada and assist with de-stigmatizing carbohydrate foods by helping to facilitate the consumption of carbohydrate foods that align with healthy dietary patterns.
3.
Dietary Glycemic Index and Load and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: Assessment of Causal Relations.
Livesey, G, Taylor, R, Livesey, HF, Buyken, AE, Jenkins, DJA, Augustin, LSA, Sievenpiper, JL, Barclay, AW, Liu, S, Wolever, TMS, et al
Nutrients. 2019;11(6)
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
It is generally accepted that certain diet and lifestyle choices contribute to a person’s risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). In this meta-analysis, researchers set out to review previous studies and assess whether there is any evidence that the amount and type of carbohydrate (measured by Glycaemic Index (GI) and Glycaemic Load (GL)) in a person’s diet has a direct influence on their risk of developing T2D. The authors concluded with a high level of confidence that eating high GI and GL foods can lead to a higher risk of developing T2D. They suggest that nutrition advice that favours low GI and GL foods could produce significant cost savings for public healthcare.
Abstract
While dietary factors are important modifiable risk factors for type 2 diabetes (T2D), the causal role of carbohydrate quality in nutrition remains controversial. Dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) have been examined in relation to the risk of T2D in multiple prospective cohort studies. Previous meta-analyses indicate significant relations but consideration of causality has been minimal. Here, the results of our recent meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies of 4 to 26-y follow-up are interpreted in the context of the nine Bradford-Hill criteria for causality, that is: (1) Strength of Association, (2) Consistency, (3) Specificity, (4) Temporality, (5) Biological Gradient, (6) Plausibility, (7) Experimental evidence, (8) Analogy, and (9) Coherence. These criteria necessitated referral to a body of literature wider than prospective cohort studies alone, especially in criteria 6 to 9. In this analysis, all nine of the Hill's criteria were met for GI and GL indicating that we can be confident of a role for GI and GL as causal factors contributing to incident T2D. In addition, neither dietary fiber nor cereal fiber nor wholegrain were found to be reliable or effective surrogate measures of GI or GL. Finally, our cost-benefit analysis suggests food and nutrition advice favors lower GI or GL and would produce significant potential cost savings in national healthcare budgets. The high confidence in causal associations for incident T2D is sufficient to consider inclusion of GI and GL in food and nutrient-based recommendations.