Background/objectives: Cereal foods are major contributors to the daily energy, protein, and dietary fiber intake all over the world. The role of cereals in human health is dependent on whether they are consumed as refined or whole grain and on cereal species. To unravel the underlying mechanisms of health effects attributed to specific cereal foods and to provide more precise dietary advice, there is a need for improved dietary assessment of whole-grain intake. Dietary biomarkers of specific cereals, different fractions or cereal-containing foods could offer such a possibility. The aim of this review was to summarize the current status on biomarkers of different cereals, fractions, and specific cereal foods.Subjects and methods: A literature review was conducted and putative biomarkers of different cereals and pseudo-cereals (wheat, oats, rye, barley, rice, and quinoa) as well as for different grain fractions (whole grain, refined grain, bran) and foods were summarized and discussed.Results: Several putative biomarkers have been suggested for different cereals, due to their unique presence in these grains. Among the biomarkers, odd-numbered alkylresorcinols are the most well-studied and -evaluated biomarkers and reflect whole-grain wheat and rye intake. Even-numbered alkylresorcinols have been suggested to reflect quinoa intake. Recent studies have also highlighted the potential of avenanthramides and avenacosides as specific biomarkers of oat intake, and a set of biomarkers have been suggested to reflect rice bran intake. However, there are yet no specific biomarkers of refined grains. Most biomarker candidates remain to be evaluated in controlled interventions and free-living populations before applied as biomarkers of intake in food and health studies.Conclusion: Several putative biomarkers of different cereals have been suggested and should be validated in human studies using recently developed food intake biomarker validation criteria.

A Mediterranean-style healthy eating pattern (MED-HEP) supports metabolic health, but the utility of including low-glycemic index (GI) foods to minimize postprandial glucose excursions remain unclear. Therefore, we investigated the relative contribution of GI towards improvements in postprandial glycemia and glycemic variability after adopting a MED-HEP. We conducted a randomized, controlled dietary intervention, comparing high- versus low-GI diets in a multi-national (Italy, Sweden, and the United States) sample of adults at risk for type 2 diabetes. For 12 weeks, participants consumed either a low-GI or high-GI MED-HEP. We assessed postprandial plasma glucose and insulin responses to high- or low-GI meals, and daily glycemic variability via continuous glucose monitoring at baseline and post-intervention. One hundred sixty adults (86 females, 74 males; aged 55 ± 11 y, BMI 31 ± 3 kg/m², mean ± SD) with ≥two metabolic syndrome traits completed the intervention. Postprandial insulin concentrations were greater after the high-GI versus the low-GI test meals at baseline (p = 0.004), but not post-intervention (p = 0.17). Postprandial glucose after the high-GI test meal increased post-intervention, being significantly higher than that after the low-GI test meal (35%, p < 0.001). Average daily glucose concentrations decreased in both groups post-intervention. Indices of 24-h glycemic variability were reduced in the low-GI group as compared to baseline and the high-GI intervention group. These findings suggest that low-GI foods may be an important feature within a MED-HEP.