Measuring the glycemic index of foods: interlaboratory study
2008
Wolever, Thomas MS | Brand-Miller, Jennie C. | Abernethy, John | Astrup, Arne | Atkinson, Fiona | Axelsen, Mette | Björck, Inger | Brighenti, Furio | Brown, Rachel | Brynes, Audrey | Casiraghi, M Cristina | Cazaubiel, Murielle | Dahlqvist, Linda | Delport, Elizabeth | Denyer, Gareth S. | Erba, Daniela | Frost, Gary | Granfeldt, Yvonne | Hampton, Shelagh | Hart, Valerie A. | Hätönen, Katja A. | Henry, C Jeya | Hertzler, Steve | Hull, Sarah | Jerling, Johann | Johnston, Kelly L. | Lightowler, Helen | Mann, Neil | Morgan, Linda | Panlasigui, Leonora N. | Pelkman, Christine | Perry, Tracy | Pfeiffer, Andreas FH | Pieters, Marlien | Dan Ramdath, D. | Ramsingh, Rayna T. | Robert, S Daniel | Robinson, Carol | Sarkkinen, Essi | Scazzina, Francesca | Sison, Dave Clark D. | Sloth, Birgitte | Staniforth, Jane | Tapola, Niina | Valsta, Liisa M. | Verkooijen, Inge | Weickert, Martin O. | Weseler, Antje R. | Wilkie, Paul | Zhang, Jian
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, r² = 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, r² = 0.810 for model). CONCLUSIONS: The between-laboratory SD of the GI values is [almost equal 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.
Show more [+] Less [-]AGROVOC Keywords
Bibliographic information
This bibliographic record has been provided by National Agricultural Library