4.4 Article

Glycaemic indices and glycaemic loads of common Korean carbohydrate-rich foods

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 121, 期 4, 页码 416-425

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114518003446

关键词

Glycaemic index; Glycaemic load; Carbohydrate-rich foods; Cooking methods

资金

  1. Cooperative Research Program for Agricultural Science and Technology Development [PJ009445]
  2. Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glycaemic index (GI) and glycaemic load (GL) values of foods consumed in Asia remain poorly characterised despite the fact that Asian diets are high in carbohydrates. We evaluated the GI and GL of the most commonly consumed carbohydrate-rich foods, according to food type and cooking methods. GI and GL values were determined using protocols from the FAO/WHO and International Standards Organization recommendations. A total of 152 healthy subjects were enrolled in the study. In all, forty-nine carbohydrate-rich foods were categorised as cereal grains, noodles and pasta, breads and other processed grains and starchy vegetables, prepared using standard cooking methods and evaluated. Cereal grains had the widest range of GI values that the food made with white rice and barley had GI values of 51-93 and 35-70, respectively, according to cooking methods, and most cereal grains had high GL values. Noodles and pasta had low to medium GI values, but most foods had high GL values. Breads had medium to high GI and GL values, while other processed grains had low to medium GI and GL values. The GI values for food made with starchy vegetables (e.g. potatoes and sweet potatoes) varied widely for different cooking methods but tended to have low GL values. In conclusion, GI values for a single food type varied widely with the cooking method used. This study of GI and GL values for common carbohydrate-rich foods provides a valuable reference for consumers and health professionals to make informed food choices for glycaemic control.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据