Article

Association between dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, and body mass index in the Inter99 study: is underreporting a problem?

Steno Diabetes Center, Gentofte, Denmark.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Impact Factor: 6.92). 10/2006; 84(3):641-5.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The few studies examining the potential associations between glycemic index (GI), glycemic load (GL), and body mass index (BMI) have provided no clear pictures. Underreporting of energy intake may be one explanation for this.
We examined the associations between GI, GL, and BMI by focusing on the confounding factor of total energy intake and the effect of exclusion of low energy reporters (LERs).
This was a cross-sectional study of 6334 subjects aged 30-60 y. Dietary intake was estimated from a food-frequency questionnaire. GI and GL were estimated by using white bread as the reference food. Underreporting of energy intake was assessed as reported energy intake divided by basal metabolic rate (EI/BMR); LERs were defined as those having an EI/BMR < 1.14. Univariate and multiple linear regression models were used to test for associations between GI, GL, and BMI. The confounders were sex, age, smoking, physical activity, alcohol intake, and energy intake. All analyses were conducted on 1) the entire population and 2) a subsample excluding LERs.
In the univariate analyses of the entire population, GL was inversely associated with BMI. No association was observed for GI. After full adjustment (including energy intake), both GI and GL were positively associated with BMI. When LERs were excluded, GL was positively associated with BMI in all analyses, and GI was positively associated with BMI in the multiple analyses.
We showed a positive association between GI, GL, and BMI. Energy adjustment and the exclusion of LERs significantly affected the results of the analysis; thus, we stress the importance of energy adjustment.

0 Followers
 · 
166 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dietary patterns have been associated with the incidence of type 2 diabetes, but little is known about the impact of ethnicity on this relationship. This study evaluated the association between four a priori dietary quality indexes and risk of type 2 diabetes among white individuals, Japanese-Americans and Native Hawaiians in the Hawaii component of the Multiethnic Cohort.
    Diabetologia 10/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00125-014-3404-8 · 6.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study comprised 2 experiments that tested the hypothesis that a high-amylose starch diet (AMO) would improve body weight and glycemic control relative to a high-amylopectin starch diet (AMN) in rats with diet-induced obesity. After inducing obesity with a high-fat and -energy diet (Expt. 1), male Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 46) were divided into 4 groups and given free or restricted access to either an AMN or an AMO diet for 4 wk (Expt. 2). After 3 wk, rats from each group underwent an oral glucose tolerance test. At the end of the experiment, food-deprived rats were killed by decapitation and blood and tissues were collected for analyses. AMO led to lower total energy intake, weight gain, fat pad mass, and glycemic response but higher insulin sensitivity index than AMN, only when consumed ad libitum (AL) (P < 0.05). AMO led to higher glucagon-like peptide-1 and peptide YY responses and mRNA levels, independent of feeding paradigm (P < 0.01). The mRNA levels of key neuropeptide systems involved in the regulation of food intake were affected only by energy restriction. On the other hand, AMO resulted in higher expression of uncoupling protein-1 in the brown adipose tissue than AMN in rats that consumed food AL (P < 0.05). The effects of AMO appear to be mediated by its high resistant starch content rather than its glycemic index. We conclude that starches high in AMO can be effective in weight and glycemic control in obesity.
    Journal of Nutrition 08/2009; 139(10):1881-9. DOI:10.3945/jn.109.110650 · 4.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Dietary glycemic index or load is thought to play an important role in glucose metabolism. However, few studies have investigated the relation between glycemic index (GI) or load (GL) and glycemia in Asian populations. In this cross-sectional analysis of a randomized controlled trial, the Saku Control Obesity Program, we examined the relation between the baseline GI or GL and glycemia (HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose [FPG] levels), insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), β-cell function (HOMA-β), and other metabolic risk factors (lipid levels, diastolic and systolic blood pressure, and adiposity measures). Methods The participants were 227 obese Japanese women and men. We used multiple linear regression models and logistic regression models to adjust for potential confounding factors such as age, sex, visceral fat area, total energy intake, and physical activity levels. Results After adjustments for potential confounding factors, GI was not associated with HbA1c, but GL was positively associated with HbA1c. For increasing quartiles of GI, the adjusted mean HbA1c were 6.3%, 6.7%, 6.4%, and 6.4% (P for trend = 0.991). For increasing quartiles of GL, the adjusted mean HbA1c were 6.2%, 6.2%, 6.6%, and 6.5% (P for trend = 0.044). In addition, among participants with HbA1c ≥ 7.0%, 20 out of 28 (71%) had a high GL (≥ median); the adjusted odds ratio for HbA1c ≥ 7.0% among participants with higher GL was 3.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2 to 8.1) compared to the participants with a lower GL (<median). Further, among 16 participants with FPG ≥ 150 mg/dL, 13 participants (81.3%) had a higher GL; the adjusted odds ratio for FPG ≥ 150 mg/dL among participants with a higher GL was 8.5 (95% confidence interval = 1.7 to 43.4) compared to those with a lower GL. In contrast, GI and GL were not associated with metabolic risk factors other than glycemia. Conclusions Our findings suggest that participants with poor glycemic control tend to have a higher GL in an obese Japanese population.
    Nutrition & Metabolism 09/2012; 9(1):79. DOI:10.1186/1743-7075-9-79 · 3.36 Impact Factor