The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Measuring the glycemic index of foods: interlaboratory study

På svenska

Author

  • Thomas M. S. Wolever
  • Jennie C. Brand-Miller
  • John Abernethy
  • Arne Astrup
  • Fiona Atkinson
  • Mette Axelsen
  • Inger Björck
  • Furio Brighenti
  • Rachel Brown
  • Audrey Brynes
  • M. Cristina Casiraghi
  • Murielle Cazaubiel
  • Linda Dahlqvist
  • Elizabeth Delport
  • Gareth S. Denyer
  • Daniela Erba
  • Gary Frost
  • Yvonne Granfeldt
  • Shelagh Hampton
  • Valerie A. Hart
  • Katja A. Hatonen
  • C. Jeya Henry
  • Steve Hertzler
  • Sarah Hull
  • Johann Jerling
  • Kelly L. Johnston
  • Helen Lightowler
  • Neil Mann
  • Linda Morgan
  • Leonora N. Panlasigui
  • Christine Pelkman
  • Tracy Perry
  • Andreas F. H. Pfeiffer
  • Marlien Pieters
  • D. Dan Ramdath
  • Rayna T. Ramsingh
  • S. Daniel Robert
  • Carol Robinson
  • Essi Sarkkinen
  • Francesca Scazzina
  • Dave Clark D. Sison
  • Birgitte Sloth
  • Jane Staniforth
  • Niina Tapola
  • Liisa M. Valsta
  • Inge Verkooijen
  • Martin O. Weickert
  • Antje R. Weseler
  • Paul Wilkie
  • Jian Zhang
Show all

Summary, in English

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.

Department/s

Publishing year

2008

Language

English

Pages

247-257

Publication/Series

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Volume

87

Issue

1

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

Oxford University Press

Topic

  • Nutrition and Dietetics

Keywords

  • clinical trial
  • dietary carbohydrate
  • glycemic index
  • methodology
  • glucose
  • humans

Status

Published

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1938-3207