Search

Background/objectives To examine the association between various carbohydrate quality indicators and nutrient adequacy in Australian adults. Subjects/methods Dietary data from adult participants of the 2011-2012 Australian Health Survey (weighted n = 6150) who had completed two 24 h recalls were analyzed. Glycaemic indices (GI) of foods were estimated based on a published method. Quartiles of dietary GI (dGI) and glycaemic load (dGL), and intakes of high (CHO.sub.highGI) and low-GI carbohydrates (CHO.sub.lowGI) were derived. Estimated marginal means and standard errors of nutrient and food group intakes by quartiles were calculated using ANCOVA. Odds ratios of not meeting the nutrient reference values for Australia and New Zealand (NRVs) by quartiles of the carbohydrate quality indicators were calculated by logistic regression. Analyses were adjusted for known confounders. Results Participants with higher CHO.sub.highGI had lower intakes of the majority of nutrients examined, except sodium and %energy from free sugars. They were also more than 100% more likely to not meet the NRVs of vitamin A (2.19, 95% CI 1.89, 2.84), vitamin C (3.93, 95% CI: 1.61, 9.60), vitamin E (2.63, 95% CI: 2.08, 3.31), iron (2.27, 95% CI: 1.48, 3.49), magnesium (2.50, 95% CI: 2.01, 3.12), potassium (2.25, 95% CI: 1.79, 2.83), %EFS (2.74, 95% CI: 2.22, 3.38), and LCn3PUFA (2.35, 95% CI: 1.76, 3.16). Similar results were observed for dGI and dGL, while trends for CHO.sub.lowGI were in opposite direction in general. Conclusions Of the carbohydrate quality indicators examined, CHO.sub.highGI was the strongest predictor of nutrient adequacy. Improvement in nutrient adequacy likely contributed to the health protective effect of a low-GI diet., Author(s): Daniel Ka Yu Kwan [sup.1] , Jimmy Chun Yu Louie [sup.1] [sup.2] Author Affiliations: (1) School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong [...]

Recent criticisms of the glycaemic index (GI) focus on its validity with assertions that GI methodology is not valid, GI values are inaccurate and imprecise, GI does not predict what foods are healthy and that whole grain and fibre are better markers of carbohydrate quality than GI. None of the critics provide sound reasons for rejecting GI because some of their arguments are based on flagrant errors in understanding and interpretation while others are not supported by current data or are inconsistent with other nutritional recommendations. This paper addresses current criticisms of GI and outlines reasons why GI is valid: (1) GI methodology is accurate and precise enough for practical use;(2) GI is a property of foods; and (3) GI is biologically meaningful and relevant to virtually everyone. Current dietary guidelines recommend increased consumption of whole grains and dietary fibre but do not mention GI. However, this is illogical because the evidence that GI affects health outcomes is at least as good or better than that for whole grains and fibre. GI is a novel concept from a regulatory point of view and a number of problems need to be addressed to successfully translate GI knowledge into practice. The problems are not insurmountable but no progress can be made until bias and misunderstanding about GI can be overcome and there is better agreement about what is the actual state of knowledge on GI so that the real issues can be identified and addressed. Keywords: Human nutrition; dietary carbohydrates; nutrition recommendations; public health, The glycaemic index (GI) was proposed over 30 years ago as a classification of the blood glucose-raising potential of carbohydrate containing foods (1) and it has been controversial ever since. [...]

When I was a child, one of my favorite stories was the old fable about 'stone soup.' There are probably as many versions of this fable as it is years [...]

Counting carbohydrates in the foods you eat can help you control your blood glucose. This is because carbohydrates raise your blood glucose more than any other nutrient. Foods can be [...]

As part of the 2000 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the public is advised to choose beverages and foods to moderate their intake of sugars. The term sugars is conventionally used to describe the mono- and disaccharides. However, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans distinguish between added sugars and other sources of carbohydrates. The concept of added sugars provides consumers with useful information, especially if they are trying to limit excessive use of caloric sweeteners. Added sugars are defined as sugars that are eaten separately at the table or used as ingredients in processed or prepared foods. Consumption of added sugars has increased steadily as documented by both food supply data and nationwide food consumption survey data. The largest source of added sugars in the U.S. diet is nondiet soft drinks, accounting for one third of total intake. Diets high in sugars have been associated with various health problems, including dental caries, dyslipidemias, obesity, bone loss and fractures, and poor diet quality. Research gaps are identified. KEY WORDS: * added sugar * soft drinks * dietary guidlines