Reliable tables of glycemic index (GI) compiled from the scientific literature are instrumental in improving the quality of research examining the relation between GI, glycemic load, and health. The GI has proven to be a more useful nutritional concept than is the chemical classification of carbohydrate (as simple or complex, as sugars or starches, or as available or unavailable), permitting new insights into the relation between the physiologic effects of carbohydrate-rich foods and health. Several prospective observational studies have shown that the chronic consumption of a diet with a high glycemic load (GI × dietary carbohydrate content) is independently associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers. This revised table contains almost 3 times the number of foods listed in the original table (first published in this Journal in 1995) and contains nearly 1300 data entries derived from published and unpublished verified sources, representing > 750 different types of foods tested with the use of standard methods. The revised table also lists the glycemic load associated with the consumption of specified serving sizes of different foods.

OBJECTIVE—To systematically tabulate published and unpublished sources of reliable glycemic index (GI) values. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A literature search identified 205 articles published between 1981 and 2007. Unpublished data were also included where the data quality could be verified. The data were separated into two lists: the first representing more precise data derived from testing healthy subjects and the second primarily from individuals with impaired glucose metabolism. RESULTS—The tables, which are available in the online-only appendix, list the GI of over 2,480 individual food items. Dairy products, legumes, and fruits were found to have a low GI. Breads, breakfast cereals, and rice, including whole grain, were available in both high and low GI versions. The correlation coefficient for 20 staple foods tested in both healthy and diabetic subjects was r = 0.94 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS—These tables improve the quality and quantity of GI data available for research and clinical practice.

Background: Inconsistent findings from observational studies have prolonged the controversy over the effects of dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) on the risk of certain chronic diseases. Objective: The objective was to evaluate the association between GI, GL, and chronic disease risk with the use of meta-analysis techniques. Design: A systematic review of published reports identified a total of 37 prospective cohort studies of GI and GL and chronic disease risk. Studies were stratified further according to the validity of the tools used to assess dietary intake. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated in a Cox proportional hazards model and combined by using a random-effects model. Results: From 4 to 20 y of follow-up across studies, a total of 40 129 incident cases were identified. For the comparison between the highest and lowest quantiles of GI and GL, significant positive associations were found in fully adjusted models of validated studies for type 2 diabetes (GI RR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.23, 1.59; GL RR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.45), coronary heart disease (GI RR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.56), gallbladder disease (GI RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.40; GL RR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.25, 1.60), breast cancer (GI RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.16), and all diseases combined (GI RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.19; GL RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.15). Conclusions: Low-GI and/or low-GL diets are independently associated with a reduced risk of certain chronic diseases. In diabetes and heart disease, the protection is comparable with that seen for whole grain and high fiber intakes. The findings support the hypothesis that higher postprandial glycemia is a universal mechanism for disease progression.

OBJECTIVE—The use of diets with low glycemic index (GI) in the management of diabetes is controversial, with contrasting recommendations around the world. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine whether low-GI diets, compared with conventional or high-GI diets, improved overall glycemic control in individuals with diabetes, as assessed by reduced HbA1c or fructosamine levels. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Literature searches identified 14 studies, comprising 356 subjects, that met strict inclusion criteria. All were randomized crossover or parallel experimental design of 12 days’ to 12 months’ duration (mean 10 weeks) with modification of at least two meals per day. Only 10 studies documented differences in postprandial glycemia on the two types of diet. RESULTS—Low-GI diets reduced HbA1c by 0.43% points (CI 0.72–0.13) over and above that produced by high-GI diets. Taking both HbA1c and fructosamine data together and adjusting for baseline differences, glycated proteins were reduced 7.4% (8.8–6.0) more on the low-GI diet than on the high-GI diet. This result was stable and changed little if the data were unadjusted for baseline levels or excluded studies of short duration. Systematically taking out each study from the meta-analysis did not change the CIs. CONCLUSIONS—Choosing low-GI foods in place of conventional or high-GI foods has a small but clinically useful effect on medium-term glycemic control in patients with diabetes. The incremental benefit is similar to that offered by pharmacological agents that also target postprandial hyperglycemia.

The positive and negative health effects of dietary carbohydrates are of interest to both researchers and consumers. International experts on carbohydrate research held a scientific summit in Stresa, Italy, in June 2013 to discuss controversies surrounding the utility of the glycemic index (GI), glycemic load (GL) and glycemic response (GR). The outcome was a scientific consensus statement which recognized the importance of postprandial glycemia in overall health, and the GI as a valid and reproducible method of classifying carbohydrate foods for this purpose. There was consensus that diets low in GI and GL were relevant to the prevention and management of diabetes and coronary heart disease, and probably obesity. Moderate to weak associations were observed for selected cancers. The group affirmed that diets low in GI and GL should always be considered in the context of diets otherwise understood as healthy, complementing additional ways of characterizing carbohydrate foods, such as fiber and whole grain content. Diets of low GI and GL were considered particularly important in individuals with insulin resistance. Given the high prevalence of diabetes and pre-diabetes worldwide and the consistency of the scientific evidence reviewed, the expert panel confirmed an urgent need to communicate information on GI and GL to the general public and health professionals, through channels such as national dietary guidelines, food composition tables and food labels.

Although weight loss can be achieved by any means of energy restriction, current dietary guidelines have not prevented weight regain or population-level increases in obesity and overweight. Many high-carbohydrate, low-fat diets may be counterproductive to weight control because they markedly increase postprandial hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia. Many high-carbohydrate foods common to Western diets produce a high glycemic response [high-glycemic-index (GI) foods], promoting postprandial carbohydrate oxidation at the expense of fat oxidation, thus altering fuel partitioning in a way that may be conducive to body fat gain. In contrast, diets based on low-fat foods that produce a low glycemic response (low-GI foods) may enhance weight control because they promote satiety, minimize postprandial insulin secretion, and maintain insulin sensitivity. This hypothesis is supported by several intervention studies in humans in which energy-restricted diets based on low-GI foods produced greater weight loss than did equivalent diets based on high-GI foods. Long-term studies in animal models have also shown that diets based on high-GI starches promote weight gain, visceral adiposity, and higher concentrations of lipogenic enzymes than do isoenergetic, macronutrientcontrolled, low-GI-starch diets. In a study of healthy pregnant women, a high-GI diet was associated with greater weight at term than was a nutrient-balanced, low-GI diet. In a study of diet and complications of type 1 diabetes, the GI of the overall diet was an independent predictor of waist circumference in men. These findings provide the scientific rationale to justify randomized, controlled, multicenter intervention studies comparing the effects of conventional and low-GI diets on weight control.