Glycemic index (GI) describes the blood glucose response after consumption of a carbohydrate containing test food relative to a carbohydrate containing reference food, typically glucose or white bread. GI was originally designed for people with diabetes as a guide to food selection, advice being given to select foods with a low GI. The amount of food consumed is a major determinant of postprandial hyperglycemia, and the concept of glycemic load (GL) takes account of the GI of a food and the amount eaten. More recent recommendations regarding the potential of low GI and GL diets to reduce the risk of chronic diseases and to treat conditions other than diabetes, should be interpreted in the light of the individual variation in blood glucose levels and other methodological issues relating to measurement of GI and GL. Several factors explain the large inter- and intra-individual variation in glycemic response to foods. More reliable measurements of GI and GL of individual foods than are currently available can be obtained by studying, under standard conditions, a larger number of subjects than has typically been the case in the past. Meta-analyses suggest that foods with a low GI or GL may confer benefit in terms of glycemic control in diabetes and lipid management. However, low GI and GL foods can be energy dense and contain substantial amounts of sugars or undesirable fats that contribute to a diminished glycemic response. Therefore, functionality in terms of a low glycemic response alone does not necessarily justify a health claim. Most studies, which have demonstrated health benefits of low GI or GL involved naturally occurring and minimally processed carbohydrate containing cereals, vegetables and fruit. These foods have qualities other than their immediate impact on postprandial glycemia as a basis to recommend their consumption. When the GI or GL concepts are used to guide food choice, this should be done in the context of other nutritional indicators and when values have been reliably measured in a large group of individuals.

Despite initial enthusiasm, the relationship between glycemic index (GI) and glycemic response (GR) and disease prevention remains unclear. This review examines evidence from randomized, controlled trials and observational studies in humans for short-term (e.g., satiety) and long-term (e.g., weight, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes) health effects associated with different types of GI diets. A systematic PubMed search was conducted of studies published between 2006 and 2018 with key words glycemic index, glycemic load, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, body weight, satiety, and obesity. Criteria for inclusion for observational studies and randomized intervention studies were set. The search yielded 445 articles, of which 73 met inclusion criteria. Results suggest an equivocal relationship between GI/GR and disease outcome. The strongest intervention studies typically find little relationship among GI/GR and physiological measures of disease risk. Even for observational studies, the relationship between GI/GR and disease outcomes is limited. Thus, it is unlikely that the GI of a food or diet is linked to disease risk or health outcomes. Other measures of dietary quality, such as fiber or whole grains may be more likely to predict health outcomes. Interest in food patterns as predictors of health benefits may be more fruitful for research to inform dietary guidance.

Background: Glycemic index (GI) testing is normally based on individual foods, whereas GIs for meals or diets are based on a formula using a weighted sum of the constituents. The accuracy with which the formula can predict a meal or diet GI is questionable.

Fat, protein and carbohydrate are essential macronutrients. Various organisations have made recommendations as to the energy contribution that each of these components makes to our overall diet. The extent of food refining and the ability of food systems to support future populations may also impact on how macronutrients contribute to our diet. In this Special Issue, we are calling for manuscripts from all disciplines to provide a broad-ranging discussion on macronutrients and health from personal, public and planetary perspectives.

Background: Food fortification with folic acid has been introduced in several countries for the prevention of neural tube defects. Fortification has lowered total homocysteine (tHcy) concentrations in the US population, a consequence that may have health benefits. However, folic acid fortification could mask vitamin B-12 deficiency. Synthetic l-5-methyltetrahydrofolate (l-MTHF) may be more appropriate than folic acid as a fortificant because it is unlikely to mask the hematologic indicators of vitamin B-12 deficiency. Objective: The objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness of 100 μg folic acid/d with that of equimolar l-MTHF in lowering tHcy in healthy volunteers. Design: The study was designed as a 24-wk, randomized, placebo-controlled intervention. Free-living healthy volunteers (n = 167) were randomly assigned to receive a daily supplement containing folic acid (100 μg), l-MTHF (113 μg), or placebo. Blood collected at baseline and at 8, 16, and 24 wk was analyzed for tHcy, plasma folate, and red blood cell folate (RCF) concentrations. Results: At 24 wk, after adjustment for baseline values, mean (95% CI) tHcy was 14.6% (9.3, 19.5%) and 9.3% (3.7, 14.6%) lower, mean plasma folate was 34% (14, 56%) and 52% (30, 78%) higher, and mean RCF was 23% (12, 35%) and 31% (19, 44%) higher in the l-MTHF and folic acid groups, respectively, than in the placebo group. l-MTHF was more effective than was folic acid in lowering tHcy (P < 0.05). At 24 wk, the increases in plasma folate and RCF concentrations did not differ significantly between the 2 supplemented groups. Conclusion: Low-dose l-MTHF is at least as effective as is folic acid in reducing tHcy concentrations in healthy persons.