TY - JOUR
T1 - Dietary Glycemic Index and Load and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes
T2 - Assessment of Causal Relations
AU - Livesey, Geoffrey
AU - Taylor, Richard
AU - Livesey, Helen F.
AU - Buyken, Anette E.
AU - Jenkins, David J.A.
AU - Augustin, Livia S.A.
AU - Sievenpiper, John L.
AU - Barclay, Alan W.
AU - Liu, Simin
AU - Wolever, Thomas M.S.
AU - Willett, Walter C.
AU - Brighenti, Furio
AU - Salas-Salvadó, Jordi
AU - Björck, Inger
AU - Rizkalla, Salwa W.
AU - Riccardi, Gabriele
AU - Vecchia, Carlo La
AU - Ceriello, Antonio
AU - Trichopoulou, Antonia
AU - Poli, Andrea
AU - Astrup, Arne
AU - Kendall, Cyril W.C.
AU - Ha, Marie Ann
AU - Baer-Sinnott, Sara
AU - Brand-Miller, Jennie C.
PY - 2019/6/25
Y1 - 2019/6/25
N2 - While dietary factors are important modifiable risk factors for type 2 diabetes (T2D), the causal role of carbohydrate quality in nutrition remains controversial. Dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) have been examined in relation to the risk of T2D in multiple prospective cohort studies. Previous meta-analyses indicate significant relations but consideration of causality has been minimal. Here, the results of our recent meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies of 4 to 26-y follow-up are interpreted in the context of the nine Bradford-Hill criteria for causality, that is: (1) Strength of Association, (2) Consistency, (3) Specificity, (4) Temporality, (5) Biological Gradient, (6) Plausibility, (7) Experimental evidence, (8) Analogy, and (9) Coherence. These criteria necessitated referral to a body of literature wider than prospective cohort studies alone, especially in criteria 6 to 9. In this analysis, all nine of the Hill's criteria were met for GI and GL indicating that we can be confident of a role for GI and GL as causal factors contributing to incident T2D. In addition, neither dietary fiber nor cereal fiber nor wholegrain were found to be reliable or effective surrogate measures of GI or GL. Finally, our cost-benefit analysis suggests food and nutrition advice favors lower GI or GL and would produce significant potential cost savings in national healthcare budgets. The high confidence in causal associations for incident T2D is sufficient to consider inclusion of GI and GL in food and nutrient-based recommendations.
AB - While dietary factors are important modifiable risk factors for type 2 diabetes (T2D), the causal role of carbohydrate quality in nutrition remains controversial. Dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) have been examined in relation to the risk of T2D in multiple prospective cohort studies. Previous meta-analyses indicate significant relations but consideration of causality has been minimal. Here, the results of our recent meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies of 4 to 26-y follow-up are interpreted in the context of the nine Bradford-Hill criteria for causality, that is: (1) Strength of Association, (2) Consistency, (3) Specificity, (4) Temporality, (5) Biological Gradient, (6) Plausibility, (7) Experimental evidence, (8) Analogy, and (9) Coherence. These criteria necessitated referral to a body of literature wider than prospective cohort studies alone, especially in criteria 6 to 9. In this analysis, all nine of the Hill's criteria were met for GI and GL indicating that we can be confident of a role for GI and GL as causal factors contributing to incident T2D. In addition, neither dietary fiber nor cereal fiber nor wholegrain were found to be reliable or effective surrogate measures of GI or GL. Finally, our cost-benefit analysis suggests food and nutrition advice favors lower GI or GL and would produce significant potential cost savings in national healthcare budgets. The high confidence in causal associations for incident T2D is sufficient to consider inclusion of GI and GL in food and nutrient-based recommendations.
KW - alcohol
KW - causation
KW - cohort studies
KW - diabetes
KW - dietary fiber
KW - epidemiology
KW - glycemic index
KW - glycemic load
KW - meta-analysis
KW - public health
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068552159&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/nu11061436
DO - 10.3390/nu11061436
M3 - Review article
C2 - 31242690
AN - SCOPUS:85068552159
SN - 2072-6643
VL - 11
JO - Nutrients
JF - Nutrients
IS - 6
M1 - 1436
ER -