29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Low-Glycemic Index Diets in the Management of Diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

      , , ,
      Diabetes Care
      American Diabetes Association

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The use of diets with low glycemic index (GI) in the management of diabetes is controversial, with contrasting recommendations around the world. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine whether low-GI diets, compared with conventional or high-GI diets, improved overall glycemic control in individuals with diabetes, as assessed by reduced HbA(1c) or fructosamine levels. Literature searches identified 14 studies, comprising 356 subjects, that met strict inclusion criteria. All were randomized crossover or parallel experimental design of 12 days' to 12 months' duration (mean 10 weeks) with modification of at least two meals per day. Only 10 studies documented differences in postprandial glycemia on the two types of diet. Low-GI diets reduced HbA(1c) by 0.43% points (CI 0.72-0.13) over and above that produced by high-GI diets. Taking both HbA(1c) and fructosamine data together and adjusting for baseline differences, glycated proteins were reduced 7.4% (8.8-6.0) more on the low-GI diet than on the high-GI diet. This result was stable and changed little if the data were unadjusted for baseline levels or excluded studies of short duration. Systematically taking out each study from the meta-analysis did not change the CIs. Choosing low-GI foods in place of conventional or high-GI foods has a small but clinically useful effect on medium-term glycemic control in patients with diabetes. The incremental benefit is similar to that offered by pharmacological agents that also target postprandial hyperglycemia.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and incident type 2 diabetes in older women.

          Dietary carbohydrates may influence the development of type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes, for example, through effects on blood glucose and insulin concentrations. We examined the relations of baseline intake of carbohydrates, dietary fiber, dietary magnesium, and carbohydrate-rich foods and the glycemic index with incidence of diabetes. This was a prospective cohort study of 35988 older Iowa women initially free of diabetes. During 6 y of follow-up, 1141 incident cases of diabetes were reported. Total grain, whole-grain, total dietary fiber, cereal fiber, and dietary magnesium intakes showed strong inverse associations with incidence of diabetes after adjustment for potential nondietary confounding variables. Multivariate-adjusted relative risks of diabetes were 1.0, 0.99, 0.98, 0.92, and 0.79 (P for trend: 0.0089) across quintiles of whole-grain intake; 1.0, 1.09, 1.00, 0.94, and 0.78 (P for trend: 0.005) across quintiles of total dietary fiber intake; and 1.0, 0.81, 0.82, 0.81, and 0.67 (P for trend: 0.0003) across quintiles of dietary magnesium intake. Intakes of total carbohydrates, refined grains, fruit and vegetables, and soluble fiber and the glycemic index were unrelated to diabetes risk. These data support a protective role for grains (particularly whole grains), cereal fiber, and dietary magnesium in the development of diabetes in older women.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Dietary Fiber, Glycemic Load, and Risk of NIDDM in Men

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A prospective study of dietary glycemic load, carbohydrate intake, and risk of coronary heart disease in US women.

              Little is known about the effects of the amount and type of carbohydrates on risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). The objective of this study was to prospectively evaluate the relations of the amount and type of carbohydrates with risk of CHD. A cohort of 75521 women aged 38-63 y with no previous diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, or other cardiovascular diseases in 1984 was followed for 10 y. Each participant's dietary glycemic load was calculated as a function of glycemic index, carbohydrate content, and frequency of intake of individual foods reported on a validated food-frequency questionnaire at baseline. All dietary variables were updated in 1986 and 1990. During 10 y of follow-up (729472 person-years), 761 cases of CHD (208 fatal and 553 nonfatal) were documented. Dietary glycemic load was directly associated with risk of CHD after adjustment for age, smoking status, total energy intake, and other coronary disease risk factors. The relative risks from the lowest to highest quintiles of glycemic load were 1.00, 1.01, 1. 25, 1.51, and 1.98 (95% CI: 1.41, 2.77 for the highest quintile; P for trend /= 23. These epidemiologic data suggest that a high dietary glycemic load from refined carbohydrates increases the risk of CHD, independent of known coronary disease risk factors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Diabetes Care
                Diabetes Care
                American Diabetes Association
                0149-5992
                1935-5548
                August 01 2003
                July 25 2003
                August 01 2003
                : 26
                : 8
                : 2261-2267
                Article
                10.2337/diacare.26.8.2261
                12882846
                82d8c6d9-8ec5-4e92-b7fb-4e62becec6a9
                © 2003
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article