Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:36:07.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Characterising dietary glycemic load in a representative sample of Irish adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2012

H. Gibbons
Affiliation:
UCD Institute of Food and Health, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
B. A. McNulty
Affiliation:
UCD Institute of Food and Health, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
M. J. Gibney
Affiliation:
UCD Institute of Food and Health, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
A. P. Nugent
Affiliation:
UCD Institute of Food and Health, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Abstract
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

Glycemic Index (GI) is a method of ranking the quality of carbohydrate (CHO) containing foods according to their response to postprandial glycemia, whereas glycemic load (GL) assesses the total glycemic effect of the diet ranking both the quality and quantity of CHO foods(Reference Jenkins1). The underlying principle is that a low GI/GL diet is digested and absorbed more slowly than a high GI/GL diet hence regulating postprandial insulin and blood glucose levels(Reference Jenkins1). Potential health benefits of following a low GI diet include a reduced risk of obesity, diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease(Reference Jenkins1). To date, there is little published data regarding the overall GI and GL of Irish adults' diets.

The aim of this research is to describe the dietary GL of a representative sample of 1500 Irish adults and to analyse their GL in relation to nutrients consumed. Data from the National Adult Nutrition Survey (NANS)(2), which recorded food and beverage consumption using a semi-weighed 4-day food diary, was used for this analysis. The final sample consisted of 1051 adults aged 18–90 y after exclusion of under-reporters(Reference Goldberg3). NANS includes 2552 individual food codes; for the current analysis the GI of food items was assigned using previously published data(Reference Atkinson4Reference Foster-Powell6). Dietary GL was calculated as the product of the food's GI and its CHO content (g) divided by 100(Reference Salmeron7). Mean daily intakes of energy and nutrients were examined across quartiles of GL.

M=Male, F=Female, BMI=Body Mass Index, %TE=Percentage contribution to total energy intake. NMES=Non Milk Extrinsic Sugars.

abcdDifferent superscript letters indicate significance between quartiles (One-Way Analysis). Values not showing common significance (P<0.05).

Those in the highest quartiles were younger, predominantly male, had a higher BMI and consumed a significantly greater amount of energy than those in the lower quartiles. Amongst the nutrients examined, %TE from protein and fat was significantly lower in the highest than the lower quartiles. Conversely, %TE from CHO, total sugars, NMES and starch were significantly higher in those consuming high GL diets. Amongst micronutrients calcium was significantly lower in the highest quartiles than the lowest quartile.

To conclude, those who consumed a higher GL diet had a higher energy, starch and sugar intake, while having a lower protein, fat, fibre and calcium intake. The inverse relationship found between intakes of fats and sugars reiterates previous research into this sugar-fat paradigm(Reference Gibney8). Further research will consider differences in food intakes and any relationship between dietary GL and biomarkers of health between the groups.

This study was funded by the Irish Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the Food for Health Research Initiative (2007–2012).

References

1.Jenkins, DJ et al. (2002) Am J Clin Nutr 76 (suppl), 266S–73S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Irish Universities Nutrition Alliance (2011) The National Adult Nutrition Survey. http://www.iuna.net/.Google Scholar
3.Goldberg, G et al. (1991) Eur J Clin Nutr 45, 569581.Google Scholar
4.Atkinson, FS et al. (2008) Diabetes Care 31, 22812283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Flood, A et al. (2006) J Am Diet Assoc 106, 393402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Foster-Powell, K et al. (2002) Am J Clin Nut 76, 556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Salmeron, J et al. (1997) J Am Diet Assoc 277, 472477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Gibney, M et al. (1995) Am J Clin Nut 62 (suppl), 178S–94S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar