HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Extract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Barclay, A. W. Articles by Wolever, T. M.S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Barclay, A. W. Articles by Wolever, T. M.S. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Glycemic Index, Glycemic Load, and Glycemic Response Are Not the Same

¹ School of Molecular and Microbial Biosciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
² Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Address correspondence to Alan Barclay, Diabetes Australia, GPO Box 9824, Sydney, NSW, 2001, Australia. E-mail: awbarclay{at}optusnet.com.au

The paper by Hodge et al. (1) published in the November 2004 issue of Diabetes Care aptly contrasts the potential benefits of moderately high-carbohydrate diets with a low glycemic index (GI) versus diets that have a lower glycemic load (GL) by virtue of a low carbohydrate content. In their prospective analysis of a cohort of 36,000 adults followed for 4 years, Hodge et. al found that higher-carbohydrate diets were associated with a lower risk of development of type 2 diabetes. However, the type of carbohydrate was equally important: low-GI carbohydrates reduced the risk, while high-GI carbohydrates increased the risk. Thus, low GI and low GL are not equivalent and produce different clinical outcomes.

Because this issue may be confusing to some readers, it is important to clarify the difference between GI and GL. Both the quality and quantity of carbohydrate determines an individual’s glycemic response to a food or meal (2). By definition, the GI compares equal quantities of available carbohydrate in foods and provides a measure of carbohydrate quality. Available carbohydrate can be calculated by summing the quantity of available sugars, starch, oligosaccharides, and maltodextrins. As defined (3), the GL is the product of a food’s GI and its total available carbohydrate content: glycemic load = [GI x carbohydrate (g)]/100.

Therefore, the GL provides a summary measure of the relative glycemic impact of a "typical" serving of the food. Foods with a GL 10 have been classified as low GL, and those with a value 20 as high GL (4). In healthy individuals, stepwise increases in GL have been shown to predict stepwise elevations in postprandial blood glucose and/or insulin levels (5).

It can be seen from the equation that either a low-GI/high-carbohydrate food or a high-GI/low-carbohydrate food can have the same GL. However, while the effects on postprandial glycemia may be similar, there is evidence that the two approaches will have very different metabolic effects, including differences in ß-cell function (6), triglyceride concentrations (7), free fatty acid levels (7), and effects on satiety (8). Hence, the distinction has important implications for the prevention and management of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Our concern is that the use of the GL or "glycemic response" in isolation may lead to the habitual consumption of lower-carbohydrate diets.

The simplest way to consume a moderately high-carbohydrate, but low-GI diet is to follow the new 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (9) and to incorporate the recommendations of the World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization (10); that is, the GI should be used to compare foods of similar composition within food groups. By choosing the lower-GI options within a food category (breads, breakfast cereals, etc.), an individual automatically chooses those with a lower GL. Because most fruit and vegetables, other than potatoes, are not major contributors to carbohydrate intake, their GI should not be the basis for restriction.

The important message for clinicians, nutritionists, and food industry professionals is that the evidence, as it stands, suggests that for preventing type 2 diabetes, we ought to encourage low-GI carbohydrate foods but not those that simply have low "net carbs," low GL, or produce a low glycemic response.

Footnotes

T.M.S.W. is president of the Board of Directors of, holds stock in, and has received grant/research support from G.I. Testing. T.M.S.W. also holds stock in G.I. Laboratories.

References

1. Hodge AM, English DR, O’Dea K, Giles GG: Glycemic index and dietary fiber and the risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 27:2701–2706, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
2. Sheard NF, Clark NG, Brand-Miller JC, Franz MJ, Pi-Sunyer FX, Mayer-Davis E, Kulkarni K, Geil P: Dietary carbohydrate (amount and type) in the prevention and management of diabetes: a statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 27:2266–2271, 2004[Free Full Text]
   
3. Salmeron J, Manson JAE, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Wing AL, Jenkins DJ, Wing AL, Willett WC: Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in women. JAMA 277:472–477, 1997[Abstract]
   
4. Brand-Miller JC, Holt SHA, Petocz P: Reply to R. Mendosa. Am J Clin Nutr 77:994–995, 2003[Free Full Text]
   
5. Brand-Miller JC, Thomas M, Swan V, Ahmad ZI, Petocz P, Colagiuri S: Physiological validation of the concept of glycemic load in lean young adults. J Nutr 133:2728–2732, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
6. Wolever TMS, Mehling C: High-carbohydrate/low-glycaemic index dietary advice improves glucose disposition index in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. Br J Nutr 87:477–487, 2002[Medline]
   
7. Wolever TMS, Mehling C: Long-term effect of varying the source or amount of dietary carbohydrate on postprandial plasma glucose, insulin, triacylglycerol, and free fatty acid concentrations in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. Am J Clin Nutr 76:5–56, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
8. Ball SD, Keller KR, Moyer-Mileur LJ, Ding YW, Donaldson D, Jackson WD: Prolongation of satiety after low versus moderately high glycemic index meals in obese adolescents. Pediatrics 111:488–494, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
9. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 [article online]. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available from www.healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines. Accessed 16 January 2005
   
10. Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization: Carbohydrates in human nutrition: report of a Joint FAO/WHO expert consultation. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 66:1–140, 1998[Medline]
    

CiteULike

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. W Barclay, P. Petocz, J. McMillan-Price, V. M Flood, T. Prvan, P. Mitchell, and J. C Brand-Miller Glycemic index, glycemic load, and chronic disease risk--a meta-analysis of observational studies Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, March 1, 2008; 87(3): 627 - 637. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Z. Fajcsak, A. Gabor, V. Kovacs, and E. Martos The Effects of 6-Week Low Glycemic Load Diet Based on Low Glycemic Index Foods in Overweight/Obese Children - Pilot Study J. Am. Coll. Nutr., February 1, 2008; 27(1): 12 - 21. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Extract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Barclay, A. W. Articles by Wolever, T. M.S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Barclay, A. W. Articles by Wolever, T. M.S. Social Bookmarking                What's this?