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 the FAO/WHO method. 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 between-laboratory 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 approximate to 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 / Wolever, Tms; Brand Miller, Jc; Abernethy, J; Astrup, A; Atkinson, F; Axelsen, M; Bjorck, I; Brighenti, Furio; Brynes, A; Casiraghi, Mc; Cazaubiel, M; Dahlqvist, L; Delport, E; Denyer, Gs; Erba, D; Frost, G; Granfeldt, Y; Hampton, S; Hart, Va; Hatonen, Ka; Henry, Cj; Hertzler, S; Hull, S; Jerling, J; Johnston, Kl; Lightowler, H; Mann, N; Morgan, L; Panlasigui, Ln; Pelkman, C; Perry, T; Pfeiffer, Afh; Pieters, M; Ramdath, Dd; Ramsingh, Rt; Robert, Sd; Robinson, C; Sarkkinen, E; Scazzina, Francesca; Sison, Dcd; Sloth, B; Staniforth, J; Tapola, N; Valsta, Lm; Verkooijen, I; Weickert, Mo; Weseler, Ar; Wilkie, P; Zhang, J. .. - In: THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION. - ISSN 0002-9165. - 87:1(2008), pp. 247-257.

Measuring the Glycemic Index of foods: interlaboratory study.

BRIGHENTI, Furio;SCAZZINA, Francesca;
2008-01-01

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 the FAO/WHO method. 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 between-laboratory 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 approximate to 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
2008
Measuring the Glycemic Index of foods: interlaboratory study / Wolever, Tms; Brand Miller, Jc; Abernethy, J; Astrup, A; Atkinson, F; Axelsen, M; Bjorck, I; Brighenti, Furio; Brynes, A; Casiraghi, Mc; Cazaubiel, M; Dahlqvist, L; Delport, E; Denyer, Gs; Erba, D; Frost, G; Granfeldt, Y; Hampton, S; Hart, Va; Hatonen, Ka; Henry, Cj; Hertzler, S; Hull, S; Jerling, J; Johnston, Kl; Lightowler, H; Mann, N; Morgan, L; Panlasigui, Ln; Pelkman, C; Perry, T; Pfeiffer, Afh; Pieters, M; Ramdath, Dd; Ramsingh, Rt; Robert, Sd; Robinson, C; Sarkkinen, E; Scazzina, Francesca; Sison, Dcd; Sloth, B; Staniforth, J; Tapola, N; Valsta, Lm; Verkooijen, I; Weickert, Mo; Weseler, Ar; Wilkie, P; Zhang, J. .. - In: THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION. - ISSN 0002-9165. - 87:1(2008), pp. 247-257.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Am J Clin Nutr 2008 Wolever-1.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 617.17 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
617.17 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

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: https://hdl.handle.net/11381/1708160
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 171
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 149
social impact