Cited by 292Food composition and propertiesDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and Education

The glycaemic index of foods tested in diabetic patients: A new basis for carbohydrate exchange favouring the use of legumes

Open access
Jenkins, D.J.A., Wolever, T.M.S., Jenkins, A.L., Thorne, M.J., Lee, R., Kalmusky, J., Reichert, R., Wong, G.S.·1983·Diabetologia

Abstract

Recently diabetic patients have been encouraged to increase their carbohydrate intake, but exact details of which foods to use are lacking. To determine whether sufficiently large differences existed to justify more specific dietary advice, we compared the glycaemic responses to 50 g carbohydrate portions of different foods, taken as breakfast test meals by groups of five to seven diabetic patients. Two- to threefold differences were seen amongst the 15 foods tested. The glycaemic responses for spaghetti, 'All-bran', rice and beans were significantly below those for bread, while 'Cornflakes' were above. Factors predicted to influence this were without effect, including: substituting wholemeal for white bread, increasing substantially the simple sugars (using 'All-bran' or bananas instead of wholemeal bread) and doubling meal protein by adding cottage cheese to bread. Paired comparisons of the glycaemic response to the five legumes with those of the seven other starchy foods (breads, spaghetti, rice, Cornflakes, oatmeal porridge and potatoes) showed that the mean peak rise in blood glucose concentration and mean area under the glucose curve after beans were 23 and 28% lower, respectively, than the mean for the other foods (p less than 0.001). Such results suggest a potentially valuable role for dried leguminous seeds in carbohydrate exchanges for individuals with impaired carbohydrate tolerance. These large differences in blood glucose response to different food cannot at present be predicted directly from tables of chemical composition. Nevertheless, physiological testing may both aid in understanding the factors responsible and help selection of the appropriate carbohydrate foods for the diabetic diet.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00282710

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Subject characteristics including normal versus diabetic status, type 2 versus type 1 diabetes, oral agents versus insulin, good versus poor metabolic control, children versus adults with type 1 diabetes, rural African versus Western subjects, and glucose tolerance status and BMI have no significant effect on mean glycaemic index values.

    “Subject characteristics that have been examined specifically and were found to have no significant effect on mean GI include: normal v. diabetic subjects (Jenkins et al. 1983); individuals with type 2 diabetes v. individuals with type 1 diabetes (Wolever et al. 1987;Livesey, 2002);”

    From Glycaemic index methodology (2005) · cites this paper as Jenkins et al. 1983

    The Discussion (page not available in our copy) reports that GI values for 15 foods were significantly correlated between normal and diabetic volunteers and describes a similar pattern of responses. It does not report a test showing no significant effect of diabetic status on mean GI values. The other subject-characteristic comparisons in the supplied claim are not attributed to Jenkins et al. in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jenkins, D. J. A., Wolever, T. M. S., Jenkins, A. L., Thorne, M. J., Lee, R., Kalmusky, J., Reichert, R., & Wong, G. S.
Affiliations
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Diabetologia
Published
1983-04
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
257-64
ISSN
  • 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0428
OpenAlex
W2076695574
Cited by
292
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
15.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Diabetes Association
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
glycemic index, diabetes mellitus, Fabaceae, glycemic response, dietary recommendations, carbohydrate intake, starchy foods, whole grain bread, monosaccharides
MeSH terms
Aged, Animals, Blood Glucose, Bread, Edible Grain, Diabetes Mellitus, Dietary Carbohydrates, Female, Humans, Kinetics, Fabaceae, Male, Middle Aged, Milk, Plants, Medicinal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review