Skip to main content
×
Home

Effect of blood sampling schedule and method of calculating the area under the curve on validity and precision of glycaemic index values

  • Thomas M. S. Wolever (a1)
Abstract

To evaluate the suitability for glycaemic index (GI) calculations of using blood sampling schedules and methods of calculating area under the curve (AUC) different from those recommended, the GI values of five foods were determined by recommended methods (capillary blood glucose measured seven times over 2·0 h) in forty-seven normal subjects and different calculations performed on the same data set. The AUC was calculated in four ways: incremental AUC (iAUC; recommended method), iAUC above the minimum blood glucose value (AUCmin), net AUC (netAUC) and iAUC including area only before the glycaemic response curve cuts the baseline (AUCcut). In addition, iAUC was calculated using four different sets of less than seven blood samples. GI values were derived using each AUC calculation. The mean GI values of the foods varied significantly according to the method of calculating GI. The standard deviation of GI values calculating using iAUC (20·4), was lower than six of the seven other methods, and significantly less (P<0·05) than that using netAUC (24·0). To be a valid index of food glycaemic response independent of subject characteristics, GI values in subjects should not be related to their AUC after oral glucose. However, calculating GI using AUCmin or less than seven blood samples resulted in significant (P<0·05) relationships between GI and mean AUC. It is concluded that, in subjects without diabetes, the recommended blood sampling schedule and method of AUC calculation yields more valid and/or more precise GI values than the seven other methods tested here. The only method whose results agreed reasonably well with the recommended method (ie. within ±5 %) was AUCcut.

    • 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.

      Effect of blood sampling schedule and method of calculating the area under the curve on validity and precision of glycaemic index values
      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.

      Effect of blood sampling schedule and method of calculating the area under the curve on validity and precision of glycaemic index values
      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.

      Effect of blood sampling schedule and method of calculating the area under the curve on validity and precision of glycaemic index values
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Corresponding author: Dr Thomas M. S. Wolever, fax +1 416 978 5882, email thomas.wolever@utoronto.ca
References
Hide All
Allison DB, Paultre F, Goran MI, Poehlman ET & Heymsfield SB (1995) Statistical considerations regarding the use of ratios to adjust data. Int J Obes 9, 644652.
Bland JM & Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet i, 307310.
Brand Miller J, Foster-Powell K, Wolever TMS & Colagiuri S (2002) The New Glucose Revolution: The Authoritative Guide to the Glycemic Index. New York: Marlowe & Company.
Brand Miller JC, Hayne S, Petocz P & Colagiuri S (2003) Low-glycemic index diets in the management of diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care 26, 22612267.
Food and Agriculture Organization (1998) Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition. Report of an FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Carbohydrates, April 14–18, 1997. Rome, Italy, Rome: FAO.
Frost G, Leeds A, Trew G, Margara R & Dornhorst A (1998) Insulin sensitivity in women at risk of coronary heart disease and the effect of a low glycemic index diet. Metabolism 47, 12451251.
Gannon MC & Nuttall FQ (1987) Factors affecting interpretation of postprandial glucose and insulin areas. Diabetes Care 10, 759763.
Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ, Westphal SA, Neil BJ & Seaquist ER (1989) Effects of dose of ingested glucose on plasma metabolite and hormone responses in type II diabetic subjects. Diabetes Care 12, 544552.
Ha M-A, Mann JI, Melton LD & Lewis-Barned NJ (1992) Calculation of the glycaemic index. Diabetes Nutr Metab 5, 137139.
Jenkins DJA, Wolever TMS, Taylor RH et al. (1981) Glycemic index of foods: a physiological basis for carbohydrate exchange. Am J Clin Nutr 34, 362366.
Jenkins DJA, Wolever TMS, Kalmusky J et al. (1987) Low-glycemic index diet in hyperlipidemia: use of traditional starchy foods. Am J Clin Nutr 46, 6671.
Liu S, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ et al. (2000) A prospective study of dietary glycemic load, carbohydrate intake and risk of coronary heart disease in US women. Am J Clin Nutr 71, 14551461.
Meyer KA, Kuski LTH, Jacobs DR et al. (2000) Carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and incident type 2 diabetes in older women. Am J Clin Nutr 71, 921930.
Salmeron J, Ascherio A, Rimm EB et al. (1997 a) Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of NIDDM in men. Diabetes Care 20, 545550.
Salmeron J, Manson JE & Stampfer MJ (1997 b) Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in women. J Am Med Assoc 277, 472477.
Snedecor GW & Cochran WB (1980) Statistical Methods, 7th ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Van Dam RM, Visscher AW, Feskens EJ, Verhoef P & Kromhout D (2000) Dietary glycemic index in relation to metabolic risk factors and incidence of coronary heart disease: the Zutphen Elderly Study. Eur J Clin Nutr 54, 726731.
Vorster HH, Venter CS & Silvis N (1990) The glycaemic index of foods: a critical evaluation. S Afr J Food Sci Nutr 1, 1317.
Wolever TMS (1989) How important is prediction of glycemic responses? Diabetes Care 12, 591593.
Wolever TMS (1992) Glycemic index vs glycemic response: non-synonymous terms. Diabetes Care 15, 14361437.
Wolever TMS & Jenkins DJA (1986) The use of the glycemic index in predicting the blood glucose response to mixed meals. Am J Clin Nutr 43, 167172.
Wolever TMS, Jenkins DJA et al. (1990) Glycemic index of foods in individual subjects. Diabetes Care 13, 126132.
Wolever TMS & Mehling C (2002) High-carbohydrate–low-glycaemic index dietary advice improves glucose disposition index in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. Br J Nutr 87, 477487.
Wolever TMS, Vorster HH, Björk I (2003) Determination of the glycaemic index of foods: interlaboratory study. Eur J Clin Nutr 57, 475482.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Nutrition
  • ISSN: 0007-1145
  • EISSN: 1475-2662
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 5
Total number of PDF views: 930 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 721 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 24th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.