Rising rates of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and related complications have prompted calls to identify potentially modifiable risk factors that are associated with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). We systematically reviewed the scientific literature for observational studies examining specific dietary and/or physical activity (PA) factors and risk of GDM. Our search included PubMed, Medline, CINAHL/EBSCO, Science Direct and EMBASE, and identified 1167 articles, of which 40 met our inclusion criteria (e.g., singleton pregnancy, reported diet or PA data during pre-pregnancy/early pregnancy and GDM as an outcome measure). Studies were assessed for quality using a modified Quality Criteria Checklist from American Dietetic Association. Of the final 40 studies, 72% obtained a positive quality rating and 28% were rated neutral. The final analysis incorporated data on 30,871 pregnant women. Dietary studies were categorised into either caffeine, carbohydrate, fat, protein, calcium, fast food and recognized dietary patterns. Diets such as Mediterranean Diet (MedDiet), Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet and Alternate Healthy Eating Index diet (AHEI) were associated with 15–38% reduced relative risk of GDM. In contrast, frequent consumption of potato, meat/processed meats, and protein (% energy) derived from animal sources was associated with an increased risk of GDM. Compared to no PA, any pre-pregnancy or early pregnancy PA was associated with 30% and 21% reduced odds of GDM, respectively. Engaging in >90 min/week of leisure time PA before pregnancy was associated with 46% decreased odds of GDM. We conclude that diets resembling MedDiet/DASH diet as well as higher PA levels before or in early pregnancy were associated with lower risks or odds of GDM respectively. The systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO) as CRD42016027795.

The placement of nutrition information on the front of food packages has been proposed as a method of providing simplified and visible nutrition information. This study aimed to determine the most acceptable and effective front-of-pack food labelling system for Australian consumers. Consumers' preferences and ability to compare the healthiness of mock food products were assessed for different front-of-pack labelling systems. Four systems were tested, including two variations of the Percentage Daily Intake system (Monochrome %DI and Colour-Coded %DI), which displays the proportion of daily nutrient contribution that a serve of food provides; and two variations of the Traffic Light (TL) system (Traffic Light and Traffic Light + Overall Rating), which uses colour-coding to indicate nutrient levels. Intercept surveys with 790 consumers were conducted, where each participant was exposed to a single labelling system for performance testing. Participants indicated strong support for the inclusion of nutrient information on total fat, saturated fat, sugar and sodium on the front of packages, and a consistent labelling format across all products. Using the TL system, participants were five times more likely to identify healthier foods compared with the Monochrome %DI system [odds ratio (OR) = 5.18; p < 0.001], and three times more likely compared with the Colour-Coded %DI system (OR = 3.01; p < 0.05). Consumers supported the introduction of consistent front-of-pack food labelling. The TL system was the most effective in assisting consumers to identify healthier foods. Mandatory TL labelling regulations are recommended to assist consumers in making healthy food choices.

Despite tremendous growth in the consumption of gluten-free (GF) foods, there is a lack of evaluation of their nutritional profile and how they compare with non-GF foods. The present study evaluated the nutritional quality of GF and non-GF foods in core food groups, and a wide range of discretionary products in Australian supermarkets. Nutritional information on the Nutrition Information Panel was systematically obtained from all packaged foods at four large supermarkets in Sydney, Australia in 2013. Food products were classified as GF if a GF declaration appeared anywhere on the product packaging, or non-GF if they contained gluten, wheat, rye, triticale, barley, oats or spelt. The primary outcome was the ‘Health Star Rating’ (HSR: lowest score 0·5; optimal score 5), a nutrient profiling scheme endorsed by the Australian Government. Differences in the content of individual nutrients were explored in secondary analyses. A total of 3213 food products across ten food categories were included. On average, GF plain dry pasta scored nearly 0·5 stars less (P< 0·001) compared with non-GF products; however, there were no significant differences in the mean HSR for breads or ready-to-eat breakfast cereals (P≥ 0·42 for both). Relative to non-GF foods, GF products had consistently lower average protein content across all the three core food groups, in particular for pasta and breads (52 and 32 % less, P< 0·001 for both). A substantial proportion of foods in discretionary categories carried GF labels (e.g. 87 % of processed meats), and the average HSR of GF discretionary foods were not systematically superior to those of non-GF products. The consumption of GF products is unlikely to confer health benefits, unless there is clear evidence of gluten intolerance.

Summary: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken to examine the relationship between dairy consumption and overweight/obesity in prospective cohort studies. A literature search from 1980 through to April 2010 was conducted. Nineteen cohort studies met all the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Of the 19 cohort studies, 10 were among children and adolescents (aged 2 to 14 years,n = 53 to 12 829, follow‐up 8 months to 10 years) and nine among adults (aged 18 to 75 years,n = 248 to 42 696, follow‐up 2 years to 12 years). A range of dairy food exposure measures were used. Eight studies (three out of 10 studies involving children and five out of nine studies involving adults) showed a protective association against increasing weight gain (measured in various ways); one reported a significant protective association only among men who were initially overweight; seven reported no effect; one reported an increased risk (among children), and two reported both a decreased and increased risk, depending on the dairy food type. The evidence from prospective cohort studies for a protective effect of dairy consumption on risk of overweight and obesity is suggestive but not consistent, making firm conclusions difficult.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is rising. There is little evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of one dietary therapy over another. We aimed to investigate the effect of a low–glycemic index (LGI) versus a conventional high-fiber diet on pregnancy outcomes, neonatal anthropometry, and maternal metabolic profile in GDM. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Ninety-nine women (age 26–42 years; mean ± SD prepregnancy BMI 24 ± 5 kg/m2) diagnosed with GDM at 20–32 weeks’ gestation were randomized to follow either an LGI (n = 50; target glycemic index [GI] ~50) or a high-fiber moderate-GI diet (HF) (n = 49; target GI ~60). Dietary intake was assessed by 3-day food records. Pregnancy outcomes were collected from medical records. RESULTS: The LGI group achieved a modestly lower GI than the HF group (mean ± SEM 47 ± 1 vs. 53 ± 1; P < 0.001). At birth, there was no significant difference in birth weight (LGI 3.3 ± 0.1 kg vs. HF 3.3 ± 0.1 kg; P = 0.619), birth weight centile (LGI 52.5 ± 4.3 vs. HF 52.2 ± 4.0; P = 0.969), prevalence of macrosomia (LGI 2.1% vs. HF 6.7%; P = 0.157), insulin treatment (LGI 53% vs. HF 65%; P = 0.251), or adverse pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In intensively monitored women with GDM, an LGI diet and a conventional HF diet produce similar pregnancy outcomes.