Background: Many laboratories offer glycemic index (GI) services. Objective: We assessed the performance of the method used to measure GI. Design: The GI of cheese-puffs and fruit-leather (centrally provided) was measured in 28 laboratories (n = 311 subjects) by using theFAO/WHOmethod. The laboratories reported the results of their calculations and sent the raw data for recalculation centrally. Results: Values for the incremental area under the curve (AUC)reported by 54% of the laboratories differed from central calculations. Because of this and other differences in data analysis, 19% of reported food GI values differed by >5 units from those calculated centrally. GI values in individual subjects were unrelated to age, sex,ethnicity, body mass index, or AUC but were negatively related to within-individual variation (P = 0.033) expressed as the CV of the AUC for repeated reference food tests (refCV). The betweenlaboratory GI values (mean +- SD) for cheese-puffs and fruit-leather were 74.3 +- 10.5 and 33.2 +- 7.2, respectively. The mean laboratory GI was related to refCV (P = 0.003) and the type of restrictions on alcohol consumption before the test (P = 0.006, r^2 = 0.509 for model). The within-laboratory SD of GI was related to refCV (P <0.001), the glucose analysis method (P = 0.010), whether glucose measures were duplicated (P = 0.008), and restrictions on dinner the night before (P = 0.013, r^2 = 0.810 for model). Conclusions: The between-laboratory SD of the GI values is about 9. Standardized data analysis and low within-subject variation (refCV <30%) are required for accuracy. The results suggest that common misconceptions exist about which factors do and do not need to be controlled to improve precision. Controlled studies and cost-benefit analyses are needed to optimize GI methodology. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00260858.

Measuring the glycemic index of foods : interlaboratory study / T.M. Wolever, J.C. Brand-Miller, J. Abernethy, A. Astrup, F. Atkinson, M. Axelsen, I. Bjorck, F. Brighenti, R. Brown, A. Brynes, M.C. Casiraghi, M. Cazaubiel, L. Dahlqvist, E. Delport, G.S. Denyer, D. Erba, G. Frost, Y. Granfeldt, S. Hampton, V.A. Hart. - In: THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION. - ISSN 0002-9165. - 87:1(2008), pp. 247S-257S.

Measuring the glycemic index of foods : interlaboratory study

M.C. Casiraghi;D. Erba;
2008

Abstract

Background: Many laboratories offer glycemic index (GI) services. Objective: We assessed the performance of the method used to measure GI. Design: The GI of cheese-puffs and fruit-leather (centrally provided) was measured in 28 laboratories (n = 311 subjects) by using theFAO/WHOmethod. The laboratories reported the results of their calculations and sent the raw data for recalculation centrally. Results: Values for the incremental area under the curve (AUC)reported by 54% of the laboratories differed from central calculations. Because of this and other differences in data analysis, 19% of reported food GI values differed by >5 units from those calculated centrally. GI values in individual subjects were unrelated to age, sex,ethnicity, body mass index, or AUC but were negatively related to within-individual variation (P = 0.033) expressed as the CV of the AUC for repeated reference food tests (refCV). The betweenlaboratory GI values (mean +- SD) for cheese-puffs and fruit-leather were 74.3 +- 10.5 and 33.2 +- 7.2, respectively. The mean laboratory GI was related to refCV (P = 0.003) and the type of restrictions on alcohol consumption before the test (P = 0.006, r^2 = 0.509 for model). The within-laboratory SD of GI was related to refCV (P <0.001), the glucose analysis method (P = 0.010), whether glucose measures were duplicated (P = 0.008), and restrictions on dinner the night before (P = 0.013, r^2 = 0.810 for model). Conclusions: The between-laboratory SD of the GI values is about 9. Standardized data analysis and low within-subject variation (refCV <30%) are required for accuracy. The results suggest that common misconceptions exist about which factors do and do not need to be controlled to improve precision. Controlled studies and cost-benefit analyses are needed to optimize GI methodology. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00260858.
Clinical trial; Dietary carbohydrate; Glucose; Glycemic index; Humans; Methodology
Settore BIO/09 - Fisiologia
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/87/1/247S
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/2434/67495
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 36
  • Scopus 158
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 137
social impact