Low glycemic index (GI) foods have been shown to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).^1,2 Legumes, also known as pulses (dried beans, chick peas, and lentils), were the first class of foods recognized as having low GI values³ and have been recommended in many national DM guidelines.^4-6 However, few studies have assessed the effect of legumes in DM,⁷ even fewer have documented the quantity used to improve glycemic control, and none have reported their effect on cardiovascular risk.⁸ Not only are legumes good sources of slowly digested starch, but they are also relatively high in fiber and vegetable protein. Both fiber, notably viscous fiber, and also vegetable protein, specifically legume protein containing the 7S globulin fraction, are known to lower serum cholesterol levels.^9-12 Furthermore, increased intakes of fiber⁹ and substitution of vegetable for animal proteins, as occur with increased legume consumption, have been associated with reductions in blood pressure (BP).¹³ In this respect, consumption of legumes, especially in the context of hypocaloric diets, also resulted in lower BP in patients without DM.^14-17 The potential for reduction in coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors in patients with type 2 DM by a dietary change, such as increased legume consumption, aimed at improving glycemic control is particularly relevant at a time when pharmacologic approaches to achieve improved glycemic control have not resulted in improved cardiovascular outcomes in the short term.¹⁸

The contribution of fructose consumption in Western diets to overweight and obesity in populations remains uncertain. To review the effects of fructose on body weight in controlled feeding trials. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library (through 18 November 2011). At least 3 reviewers identified controlled feeding trials lasting 7 or more days that compared the effect on body weight of free fructose and nonfructose carbohydrate in diets providing similar calories (isocaloric trials) or of diets supplemented with free fructose to provide excess energy and usual or control diets (hypercaloric trials). Trials evaluating high-fructose corn syrup (42% to 55% free fructose) were excluded. The reviewers independently reviewed and extracted relevant data; disagreements were reconciled by consensus. The Heyland Methodological Quality Score was used to assess study quality. Thirty-one isocaloric trials (637 participants) and 10 hypercaloric trials (119 participants) were included; studies tended to be small (<15 participants), short (<12 weeks), and of low quality. Fructose had no overall effect on body weight in isocaloric trials (mean difference, -0.14 kg [95% CI, -0.37 to 0.10 kg] for fructose compared with nonfructose carbohydrate). High doses of fructose in hypercaloric trials (+104 to 250 g/d, +18% to 97% of total daily energy intake) lead to significant increases in weight (mean difference, 0.53 kg [CI, 0.26 to 0.79 kg] with fructose). Most trials had methodological limitations and were of poor quality. The weight-increasing effect of fructose in hypercaloric trials may have been attributable to excess energy rather than fructose itself. Fructose does not seem to cause weight gain when it is substituted for other carbohydrates in diets providing similar calories. Free fructose at high doses that provided excess calories modestly increased body weight, an effect that may be due to the extra calories rather than the fructose. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01363791).

Published meta-analyses indicate significant but inconsistent incident type-2 diabetes (T2D)-dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) risk ratios or risk relations (RR). It is now over a decade ago that a published meta-analysis used a predefined standard to identify valid studies. Considering valid studies only, and using random effects dose–response meta-analysis (DRM) while withdrawing spurious results (p < 0.05), we ascertained whether these relations would support nutrition guidance, specifically for an RR > 1.20 with a lower 95% confidence limit >1.10 across typical intakes (approximately 10th to 90th percentiles of population intakes). The combined T2D–GI RR was 1.27 (1.15–1.40) (p < 0.001, n = 10 studies) per 10 units GI, while that for the T2D–GL RR was 1.26 (1.15–1.37) (p < 0.001, n = 15) per 80 g/d GL in a 2000 kcal (8400 kJ) diet. The corresponding global DRM using restricted cubic splines were 1.87 (1.56–2.25) (p < 0.001, n = 10) and 1.89 (1.66–2.16) (p < 0.001, n = 15) from 47.6 to 76.1 units GI and 73 to 257 g/d GL in a 2000 kcal diet, respectively. In conclusion, among adults initially in good health, diets higher in GI or GL were robustly associated with incident T2D. Together with mechanistic and other data, this supports that consideration should be given to these dietary risk factors in nutrition advice. Concerning the public health relevance at the global level, our evidence indicates that GI and GL are substantial food markers predicting the development of T2D worldwide, for persons of European ancestry and of East Asian ancestry.

The authors identified individual randomized controlled trials from previous meta-analyses and additional searches, and then performed meta-analyses on cardiovascular disease outcomes and all-cause mortality. The authors assessed publications from 2012, both before and including the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force review. Their systematic reviews and meta-analyses showed generally moderate- or low-quality evidence for preventive benefits (folic acid for total cardiovascular disease, folic acid and B-vitamins for stroke), no effect (multivitamins, vitamins C, D, β-carotene, calcium, and selenium), or increased risk (antioxidant mixtures and niacin [with a statin] for all-cause mortality). Conclusive evidence for the benefit of any supplement across all dietary backgrounds (including deficiency and sufficiency) was not demonstrated; therefore, any benefits seen must be balanced against possible risks.

The apparently smaller LDL cholesterol (LDL-C)–lowering effect of soy in recent studies has prompted the U.S. FDA to reexamine the heart health claim

While dietary factors are important modifiable risk factors for type 2 diabetes (T2D), the causal role of carbohydrate quality in nutrition remains controversial. Dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) have been examined in relation to the risk of T2D in multiple prospective cohort studies. Previous meta-analyses indicate significant relations but consideration of causality has been minimal. Here, the results of our recent meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies of 4 to 26-y follow-up are interpreted in the context of the nine Bradford-Hill criteria for causality, that is: (1) Strength of Association, (2) Consistency, (3) Specificity, (4) Temporality, (5) Biological Gradient, (6) Plausibility, (7) Experimental evidence, (8) Analogy, and (9) Coherence. These criteria necessitated referral to a body of literature wider than prospective cohort studies alone, especially in criteria 6 to 9. In this analysis, all nine of the Hill’s criteria were met for GI and GL indicating that we can be confident of a role for GI and GL as causal factors contributing to incident T2D. In addition, neither dietary fiber nor cereal fiber nor wholegrain were found to be reliable or effective surrogate measures of GI or GL. Finally, our cost–benefit analysis suggests food and nutrition advice favors lower GI or GL and would produce significant potential cost savings in national healthcare budgets. The high confidence in causal associations for incident T2D is sufficient to consider inclusion of GI and GL in food and nutrient-based recommendations.