Physiological validation of the concept of glycemic load in lean young adult

Human Nutrition Unit, School of Molecular and Microbial Biosciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Journal of Nutrition (Impact Factor: 3.88). 09/2003; 133(9):2728-32.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Dietary glycemic load, the mathematical product of the glycemic index (GI) of a food and its carbohydrate content, has been proposed as an indicator of the glucose response and insulin demand induced by a serving of food. To validate this concept in vivo, we tested the hypotheses that 1). portions of different foods with the same glycemic load produce similar glycemic responses; and 2). stepwise increases in glycemic load for a range of foods produce proportional increases in glycemia and insulinemia. In the first study, 10 healthy subjects consumed 10 different foods in random order in amounts calculated to have the same glycemic load as one slice of white bread. Capillary blood samples were taken at regular intervals over the next 2 h. The glycemic response as determined by area under the curve was not different from that of white bread for nine foods. However, lentils produced lower than predicted responses (P < 0.05). In the second study, another group of subjects was tested to determine the effects of increasing glycemic load using a balanced 5 x 5 Greco-Latin square design balanced for four variables: subject, dose, food and order. Two sets of five foods were consumed at five different glycemic loads (doses) equivalent to one, two, three, four and six slices of bread. Stepwise increases in glycemic load produced significant and predictable increases in both glycemia (P < 0.001) and insulinemia (P < 0.001). These findings support the concept of dietary glycemic load as a measure of overall glycemic response and insulin demand.

Download full-text


Available from: Jennie C Brand-Miller, Sep 25, 2015
25 Reads
  • Source
    • "GL for individual food items in the dietary record was calculated as the product of diet GI and carbohydrate intake divided by 100 [23]. Dietary GL represents both the quantity and the quality of carbohydrate in diet [22] and was calculated as sum total of GL of foods consumed in the day [24]. Diet GI was calculated using the formula Diet GI= Diet GL×100/amount of carbohydrate in the diet [24]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) increases risks for type 2 diabetes and weight management is recommended to reduce the risk. Conventional dietary recommendations (energy-restricted, low fat) have limited success in women with previous GDM. The effect of lowering Glycaemic Index (GI) in managing glycaemic variables and body weight in women post-GDM is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of conventional dietary recommendations administered with and without additional low-GI education, in the management of glucose tolerance and body weight in Asian women with previous GDM. METHOD: Seventy seven Asian, non-diabetic women with previous GDM, between 20- 40y were randomised into Conventional healthy dietary recommendation (CHDR) and low GI (LGI) groups. CHDR received conventional dietary recommendations only (energy restricted, low in fat and refined sugars, high-fibre). LGI group received advice on lowering GI in addition. Fasting and 2-h post-load blood glucose after 75g oral glucose tolerance test (2HPP) were measured at baseline and 6 months after intervention. Anthropometry and dietary intake were assessed at baseline, three and six months after intervention. The study is registered at the Malaysian National Medical Research Register (NMRR) with Research ID: 5183 RESULTS: After 6 months, significant reductions in body weight, BMI and waist-to-hip ratio were observed only in LGI group (P<0.05). Mean BMI changes were significantly different between groups (LGI vs. CHDR: -0.6 vs. 0kg/m2, P= 0.03). More subjects achieved weight loss >=5% in LGI compared to CHDR group (33% vs. 8%, P=0.01). Changes in 2HPP were significantly different between groups (LGI vs. CHDR: median (IQR): -0.2(2.8) vs. +0.8 (2.0) mmol/L, P=0.025). Subjects with baseline fasting insulin>=2muIU/ml had greater 2HPP reductions in LGI group compared to those in the CHDR group (-1.9+/-0.42 vs. +1.31+/-1.4 mmol/L, P<0.001). After 6 months, LGI group diets showed significantly lower GI (57+/-5 vs. 64+/-6, P<0.001), GL (122+/-33 vs. 142+/-35, P=0.04) and higher fibre content (17+/-4 vs.13+/-4g, P<0.001). Caloric intakes were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: In women post-GDM, lowering GI of healthy diets resulted in significant improvements in glucose tolerance and body weight reduction as compared to conventional low-fat diets with similar energy prescription.
    Nutrition Journal 05/2013; 12(1):68. DOI:10.1186/1475-2891-12-68 · 2.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "This is perhaps counterintuitive, because the blood glucose AUC does not increase in direct proportion to the amount consumed. For example, eating six times the amount of bread results in an approximately threefold increase in AUC (Brand-Miller et al., 2003c). In other words, as the amount of food increased, the rate of increase in AUC declines, an effect shown in Figure 2 (Venn et al., 2006). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Glycemic index (GI) describes the blood glucose response after consumption of a carbohydrate containing test food relative to a carbohydrate containing reference food, typically glucose or white bread. GI was originally designed for people with diabetes as a guide to food selection, advice being given to select foods with a low GI. The amount of food consumed is a major determinant of postprandial hyperglycemia, and the concept of glycemic load (GL) takes account of the GI of a food and the amount eaten. More recent recommendations regarding the potential of low GI and GL diets to reduce the risk of chronic diseases and to treat conditions other than diabetes, should be interpreted in the light of the individual variation in blood glucose levels and other methodological issues relating to measurement of GI and GL. Several factors explain the large inter- and intra-individual variation in glycemic response to foods. More reliable measurements of GI and GL of individual foods than are currently available can be obtained by studying, under standard conditions, a larger number of subjects than has typically been the case in the past. Meta-analyses suggest that foods with a low GI or GL may confer benefit in terms of glycemic control in diabetes and lipid management. However, low GI and GL foods can be energy dense and contain substantial amounts of sugars or undesirable fats that contribute to a diminished glycemic response. Therefore, functionality in terms of a low glycemic response alone does not necessarily justify a health claim. Most studies, which have demonstrated health benefits of low GI or GL involved naturally occurring and minimally processed carbohydrate containing cereals, vegetables and fruit. These foods have qualities other than their immediate impact on postprandial glycemia as a basis to recommend their consumption. When the GI or GL concepts are used to guide food choice, this should be done in the context of other nutritional indicators and when values have been reliably measured in a large group of individuals.
    European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 01/2008; 61 Suppl 1:S122-31. DOI:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602942 · 2.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The experimental methods used in the current study have been previously described [31] and are briefly outlined here. In both experiments, study subjects consumed the reference food on two separate occasions and each of the test foods on one occasion only after a 10-hour overnight fast. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Foods with a low glycemic index (GI) may provide a variety of health benefits. The objective of the present study was to measure the GI and insulin index (II) of select soy foods. The study was conducted in two parts with low-carbohydrate products being tested separately. In Experiment 1, subjects averaged 23.2 years of age with BMI = 22.0 kg/m2, while subjects in Experiment 2 averaged 23.9 years of age with BMI = 21.6 kg/m2. The reference (glucose) and test foods were served in portions containing 10 g of carbohydrates in Experiment 1 (two test foods) and 25 g of carbohydrates in Experiment 2 (four test foods). Subjects consumed the reference food twice and each test food once. For each test, subjects were instructed to consume a fixed portion of the reference food or test food together with 250 g of water within 12 min. Blood samples were collected before each test and at 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 min after consumption of reference or test foods to quantify glucose and insulin. Two-hour blood glucose and plasma insulin curves were constructed and areas under the curves were calculated. GI and II values for each subject and test food were calculated. In Experiment 1, both low-carbohydrate soy foods were shown to have significantly (P < 0.05) lower GI and II values than the reference food. In Experiment 2, three of the four test foods had significantly (P < 0.05) lower GI and II values than the reference food. All but one of the soy foods tested had a low GI, suggesting that soy foods may be an appropriate part of diets intended to improve control of blood glucose and insulin levels.
    Nutrition Journal 12/2006; 5(1):35. DOI:10.1186/1475-2891-5-35 · 2.60 Impact Factor
Show more