4.7 Article

Glycemic index, glycemic load, and dietary fiber intake and incidence of type 2 diabetes in younger and middle-aged women

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 80, 期 2, 页码 348-356

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/80.2.348

关键词

glycemic index; glycemic load; dietary fiber; type 2 diabetes; prospective studies; women

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 50385] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Increasing evidence suggests an important role of carbohydrate quality in the development of type 2 diabetes. Objective: Our objective was to prospectively examine the association between glycemic index, glycemic load, and dietary fiber and the risk of type 2 diabetes in a large cohort of young women. Design: In 1991,91249 women completed a semiquantitative food-frequency questionnaire that assessed dietary intake. The women were followed for 8 y for the development of incident type 2 diabetes, and dietary information was updated in 1995. Results: We identified 741 incident cases of confirmed type 2 diabetes during 8 y (716 300 person-years) of follow-up. After adjustment for age, body mass index, family history of diabetes, and other potential confounders, glycemic index was significantly associated with an increased risk of diabetes (multivariate relative risks for quintiles 1-5, respectively: 1, 1.15, 1.07, 1.27, and 1.59; 95% CI: 1.21, 2.10; P for trend = 0.001). Conversely, cereal fiber intake was associated with a decreased risk of diabetes (multivariate relative risks for quintiles 1-5, respectively: 1, 0.85, 0.87, 0.82, and 0.64; 95% Cl: 0.48, 0.86; P for trend = 0.004). Glycemic load was not significantly associated with risk in the overall cohort (multivariate relative risks for quintiles 1-5, respectively: 1, 1.31, 1.20, 1.14, and 1.33; 95% Cl: 0.92, 1.91; P for trend = 0.21). Conclusions: A diet high in rapidly absorbed carbohydrates and low in cereal fiber is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

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

4.7
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