Skip to main content
×
Home

Information:

  • Access

Actions:

      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        Another approach to estimating the reliability of the glycaemic index: a different interpretation – response by Williams et al.
        Available formats
        ×
        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        Another approach to estimating the reliability of the glycaemic index: a different interpretation – response by Williams et al.
        Available formats
        ×
        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        Another approach to estimating the reliability of the glycaemic index: a different interpretation – response by Williams et al.
        Available formats
        ×
Export citation

We agree with Professor Wolever(1) that if glycaemic index (GI), which is intended to be a characteristic of food, is to be clinically useful it needs to be the same for nearly everyone. The results of our study(2) show that this is not the case. The GI of white bread, for instance, in our study of twenty individuals was between 46 and 138 (Fig. 1(B) of our study(2)). The GI for chickpeas, generally thought of as a low-GI food, was between 36 and 88 (Fig. 3 of our study(2)). We showed that the reliability of the GI of white bread, potato and chickpeas was poor. We also showed that the measurement procedures on which GI was based, the incremental area under the curve (iAUC) for the glucose beverage and white bread, did not provide the same values when repeated in the same people under the same conditions (Fig. 1(A) of our study(2)). Poor reliability, a consequence of measurement error, may not affect the estimate of the mean of a set of measurements, but does affect its precision. The 95 % CI for white bread in our study indicated that plausible values of the ‘true’ GI of white bread were between 74 and 90. Smaller studies have shown possible values of the GI of rice between 55 and 85, and spaghetti between 39 and 70(3). Estimates such as these make ranking foods according to their GI difficult. As GI is one of the mainstays of dietary advice for the management of diabetes, reliable estimates, in the sense that similar glucose responses to a food are obtained in similar circumstances, are important. It is difficult to see how these can be achieved, when the within-person responses for glucose and white bread are so variable. The concepts underlying GI may be useful in guiding people's choice of food. However, some caution is required because it seems that some people's responses are remarkably variable.

Conflict of interest

T. P. manages the Glycaemic Index Consultancy known as Glycaemic Index Otago.

References

1 TMS Wolever (2010) Another approach to estimating the reliability of the glycaemic index: a different interpretation. Br J Nutr 103, 16951696.
2 SM Williams , BJ Venn , T Perry , et al. (2008) Another approach to estimating the reliability of glycaemic index. Br J Nutr 100, 364372.
3 TM Wolever , HH Vorster , I Bjorck , et al. (2003) Determination of the glycaemic index of foods: interlaboratory study. Eur J Clin Nutr 57, 475482.