The argument against glycemic index: what are the other options?

Marion J Franz
{"title":"The argument against glycemic index: what are the other options?","authors":"Marion J Franz","doi":"10.1159/000094406","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is debate among professionals regarding the use of the glycemic index (GI) for meal planning. In type-1 diabetes, there are 4 studies (average duration approximately 4 weeks) comparing high versus low GI diets; none reported improvements in HbA1c, and although 2 reported improvements in fructosamine, 2 reported no differences. In type-2 diabetes, there are 12 studies (average duration approximately 5 weeks); 3 reported improvements in HbA1c and fructosamine, 5 reported no differences in HBA1c, and 3 reported no differences in fructosamine. In adults, there is limited evidence that a low GI diet is beneficial for weight loss or satiety. Three epidemiologic studies reported that a low GI/glycemic load (GL) is associated with a reduced risk of developing diabetes or prevalence of insulin resistance; however, 5 studies report no association between GI/GL and the risk of developing diabetes, fasting insulin or insulin resistance, or adiposity. In general, the total amount of carbohydrate in a meal is the primary meal-planning strategy for people with diabetes. The GI can be used as an adjunct for the fine tuning of postprandial blood glucose responses. Other food/meal-planning interventions have been shown to be more effective than the use of the GI.</p>","PeriodicalId":18989,"journal":{"name":"Nestle Nutrition workshop series. Clinical & performance programme","volume":"11 ","pages":"57-72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000094406","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nestle Nutrition workshop series. Clinical & performance programme","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000094406","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

There is debate among professionals regarding the use of the glycemic index (GI) for meal planning. In type-1 diabetes, there are 4 studies (average duration approximately 4 weeks) comparing high versus low GI diets; none reported improvements in HbA1c, and although 2 reported improvements in fructosamine, 2 reported no differences. In type-2 diabetes, there are 12 studies (average duration approximately 5 weeks); 3 reported improvements in HbA1c and fructosamine, 5 reported no differences in HBA1c, and 3 reported no differences in fructosamine. In adults, there is limited evidence that a low GI diet is beneficial for weight loss or satiety. Three epidemiologic studies reported that a low GI/glycemic load (GL) is associated with a reduced risk of developing diabetes or prevalence of insulin resistance; however, 5 studies report no association between GI/GL and the risk of developing diabetes, fasting insulin or insulin resistance, or adiposity. In general, the total amount of carbohydrate in a meal is the primary meal-planning strategy for people with diabetes. The GI can be used as an adjunct for the fine tuning of postprandial blood glucose responses. Other food/meal-planning interventions have been shown to be more effective than the use of the GI.

反对升糖指数的争论:还有其他选择吗?
专业人士对使用血糖指数(GI)来制定膳食计划存在争议。在1型糖尿病中,有4项研究(平均持续时间约为4周)比较了高血糖指数饮食和低血糖指数饮食;没有报告HbA1c改善,尽管有2例报告果糖胺改善,但2例报告无差异。在2型糖尿病中,有12项研究(平均持续时间约为5周);3例报告HbA1c和果糖胺改善,5例报告HbA1c无差异,3例报告果糖胺无差异。在成人中,低GI饮食对减肥或饱腹感有益的证据有限。三项流行病学研究报告称,低GI/血糖负荷(GL)与糖尿病发病风险降低或胰岛素抵抗患病率降低有关;然而,5项研究报告GI/GL与糖尿病、空腹胰岛素或胰岛素抵抗或肥胖风险之间没有关联。一般来说,一餐中碳水化合物的总量是糖尿病患者的主要饮食计划策略。GI可以作为微调餐后血糖反应的辅助工具。其他食物/膳食计划干预已被证明比使用GI更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信