Ruth Vrolix1, Ronald P Mensink. 1. Department of Human Biology, NUTRIM School for Nutrition, Toxicology and Metabolism, Maastricht, Netherlands. r.vrolix@hb.unimaas.nl
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies suggest that diets with a low glycemic index (GI) or glycemic load (GL) are associated with a decreased risk of developing metabolic syndrome. Intervention studies are inconsistent, however, possibly due to differences in macronutrient and fiber compositions of the experimental diets. OBJECTIVE: We tested side-by-side test foods with similar macronutrient and fiber compositions but with different sucrose-flour ratios or carbohydrate source to determine the effects of different GIs and GLs on metabolic risk markers in overweight subjects. DESIGN:Overweight men (n = 9) and women (n = 6) received in random order for 11 wk 4 test foods with an increased GI or a decreased GI (69 compared with 40, 86 compared with 48, 63 compared with 37, and 51 compared with 20, respectively). There was a GL difference of 32 units between the 2 interventions. RESULTS: At the end of the 11-wk intervention periods, the decreased GL test foods did not change fasting plasma glucose (mean +/- SD: 5.83 +/- 0.6 compared with 5.94 +/- 0.6 mmol/L) or insulin (8.3 +/- 2.8 compared with 9.8 +/- 5.1 mU/L) concentrations compared with increased GL test foods. Serum total cholesterol (5.56 +/- 0.90 compared with 5.76 +/- 1.04 mmol/L), LDL-cholesterol (3.57 +/- 0.72 compared with 3.68 +/- 0.80 mmol/L), HDL-cholesterol (1.21 +/- 0.38 compared with 1.24 +/- 0.37 mmol/L), and triacylglycerol (1.61 +/- 0.77 compared with 1.78 +/- 1.04 mmol/L) concentrations were also not significantly different for decreased and increased GL test foods, respectively. Finally, proinflammatory (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, monocyte chemoattractant protein 1) and prothrombotic (plasminogen activator inhibitor 1) markers were not affected. Glucose and lipids were also analyzed after 1 and 5 wk of intervention and were not affected by the intervention. CONCLUSION: When incorporated into a habitual diet, consumption of test foods with a decreased GL does not ameliorate metabolic risk markers in overweight subjects.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies suggest that diets with a low glycemic index (GI) or glycemic load (GL) are associated with a decreased risk of developing metabolic syndrome. Intervention studies are inconsistent, however, possibly due to differences in macronutrient and fiber compositions of the experimental diets. OBJECTIVE: We tested side-by-side test foods with similar macronutrient and fiber compositions but with different sucrose-flour ratios or carbohydrate source to determine the effects of different GIs and GLs on metabolic risk markers in overweight subjects. DESIGN: Overweight men (n = 9) and women (n = 6) received in random order for 11 wk 4 test foods with an increased GI or a decreased GI (69 compared with 40, 86 compared with 48, 63 compared with 37, and 51 compared with 20, respectively). There was a GL difference of 32 units between the 2 interventions. RESULTS: At the end of the 11-wk intervention periods, the decreased GL test foods did not change fasting plasma glucose (mean +/- SD: 5.83 +/- 0.6 compared with 5.94 +/- 0.6 mmol/L) or insulin (8.3 +/- 2.8 compared with 9.8 +/- 5.1 mU/L) concentrations compared with increased GL test foods. Serum total cholesterol (5.56 +/- 0.90 compared with 5.76 +/- 1.04 mmol/L), LDL-cholesterol (3.57 +/- 0.72 compared with 3.68 +/- 0.80 mmol/L), HDL-cholesterol (1.21 +/- 0.38 compared with 1.24 +/- 0.37 mmol/L), and triacylglycerol (1.61 +/- 0.77 compared with 1.78 +/- 1.04 mmol/L) concentrations were also not significantly different for decreased and increased GL test foods, respectively. Finally, proinflammatory (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, monocyte chemoattractant protein 1) and prothrombotic (plasminogen activator inhibitor 1) markers were not affected. Glucose and lipids were also analyzed after 1 and 5 wk of intervention and were not affected by the intervention. CONCLUSION: When incorporated into a habitual diet, consumption of test foods with a decreased GL does not ameliorate metabolic risk markers in overweight subjects.
Authors: Kimber L Stanhope; Steven C Griffen; Andrew A Bremer; Roel G Vink; Ernst J Schaefer; Katsuyuki Nakajima; Jean-Marc Schwarz; Carine Beysen; Lars Berglund; Nancy L Keim; Peter J Havel Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Mariane de Mello Fontanelli; Cristiane Hermes Sales; Antonio Augusto Ferreira Carioca; Dirce Maria Marchioni; Regina Mara Fisberg Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: Michele L Mietus-Snyder; Mark K Shigenaga; Jung H Suh; Swapna V Shenvi; Ashutosh Lal; Tara McHugh; Don Olson; Joshua Lilienstein; Ronald M Krauss; Ginny Gildengoren; Joyce C McCann; Bruce N Ames Journal: FASEB J Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Frank M Sacks; Vincent J Carey; Cheryl A M Anderson; Edgar R Miller; Trisha Copeland; Jeanne Charleston; Benjamin J Harshfield; Nancy Laranjo; Phyllis McCarron; Janis Swain; Karen White; Karen Yee; Lawrence J Appel Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Karen R Kelly; Jacob M Haus; Thomas P J Solomon; Aimee J Patrick-Melin; Marc Cook; Michael Rocco; Hope Barkoukis; John P Kirwan Journal: J Nutr Date: 2011-04-27 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Christine Clar; Lena Al-Khudairy; Emma Loveman; Sarah Am Kelly; Louise Hartley; Nadine Flowers; Roberta Germanò; Gary Frost; Karen Rees Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-07-31