{"title":"反对升糖指数的争论:还有其他选择吗?","authors":"Marion J Franz","doi":"10.1159/000094406","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is debate among professionals regarding the use of the glycemic index (GI) for meal planning. In type-1 diabetes, there are 4 studies (average duration approximately 4 weeks) comparing high versus low GI diets; none reported improvements in HbA1c, and although 2 reported improvements in fructosamine, 2 reported no differences. In type-2 diabetes, there are 12 studies (average duration approximately 5 weeks); 3 reported improvements in HbA1c and fructosamine, 5 reported no differences in HBA1c, and 3 reported no differences in fructosamine. In adults, there is limited evidence that a low GI diet is beneficial for weight loss or satiety. Three epidemiologic studies reported that a low GI/glycemic load (GL) is associated with a reduced risk of developing diabetes or prevalence of insulin resistance; however, 5 studies report no association between GI/GL and the risk of developing diabetes, fasting insulin or insulin resistance, or adiposity. In general, the total amount of carbohydrate in a meal is the primary meal-planning strategy for people with diabetes. The GI can be used as an adjunct for the fine tuning of postprandial blood glucose responses. Other food/meal-planning interventions have been shown to be more effective than the use of the GI.</p>","PeriodicalId":18989,"journal":{"name":"Nestle Nutrition workshop series. Clinical & performance programme","volume":"11 ","pages":"57-72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000094406","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The argument against glycemic index: what are the other options?\",\"authors\":\"Marion J Franz\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000094406\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There is debate among professionals regarding the use of the glycemic index (GI) for meal planning. In type-1 diabetes, there are 4 studies (average duration approximately 4 weeks) comparing high versus low GI diets; none reported improvements in HbA1c, and although 2 reported improvements in fructosamine, 2 reported no differences. In type-2 diabetes, there are 12 studies (average duration approximately 5 weeks); 3 reported improvements in HbA1c and fructosamine, 5 reported no differences in HBA1c, and 3 reported no differences in fructosamine. In adults, there is limited evidence that a low GI diet is beneficial for weight loss or satiety. Three epidemiologic studies reported that a low GI/glycemic load (GL) is associated with a reduced risk of developing diabetes or prevalence of insulin resistance; however, 5 studies report no association between GI/GL and the risk of developing diabetes, fasting insulin or insulin resistance, or adiposity. In general, the total amount of carbohydrate in a meal is the primary meal-planning strategy for people with diabetes. The GI can be used as an adjunct for the fine tuning of postprandial blood glucose responses. Other food/meal-planning interventions have been shown to be more effective than the use of the GI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nestle Nutrition workshop series. Clinical & performance programme\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"57-72\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000094406\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nestle Nutrition workshop series. Clinical & performance programme\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000094406\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nestle Nutrition workshop series. Clinical & performance programme","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000094406","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The argument against glycemic index: what are the other options?
There is debate among professionals regarding the use of the glycemic index (GI) for meal planning. In type-1 diabetes, there are 4 studies (average duration approximately 4 weeks) comparing high versus low GI diets; none reported improvements in HbA1c, and although 2 reported improvements in fructosamine, 2 reported no differences. In type-2 diabetes, there are 12 studies (average duration approximately 5 weeks); 3 reported improvements in HbA1c and fructosamine, 5 reported no differences in HBA1c, and 3 reported no differences in fructosamine. In adults, there is limited evidence that a low GI diet is beneficial for weight loss or satiety. Three epidemiologic studies reported that a low GI/glycemic load (GL) is associated with a reduced risk of developing diabetes or prevalence of insulin resistance; however, 5 studies report no association between GI/GL and the risk of developing diabetes, fasting insulin or insulin resistance, or adiposity. In general, the total amount of carbohydrate in a meal is the primary meal-planning strategy for people with diabetes. The GI can be used as an adjunct for the fine tuning of postprandial blood glucose responses. Other food/meal-planning interventions have been shown to be more effective than the use of the GI.