TY - JOUR T1 - The argument against glycemic index: what are the other options? A1 - Franz,Marion J, PY - 2006/7/6/pubmed PY - 2006/10/13/medline PY - 2006/7/6/entrez SP - 57 EP - 72 JF - Nestle Nutrition workshop series. Clinical & performance programme JO - Nestle Nutr Workshop Ser Clin Perform Programme VL - 11 N2 - 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. SN - 1422-7584 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16820731/The_argument_against_glycemic_index:_what_are_the_other_options L2 - https://www.karger.com?DOI=10.1159/000094406 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -