Cited by 108Food composition and propertiesConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingNutritional Studies and Diet

Is glycaemic index (GI) a valid measure of carbohydrate quality?

Wolever, T M S·2013·European Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Recent criticisms of the glycaemic index (GI) focus on its validity with assertions that GI methodology is not valid, GI values are inaccurate and imprecise, GI does not predict what foods are healthy and that whole grain and fibre are better markers of carbohydrate quality than GI. None of the critics provide sound reasons for rejecting GI because some of their arguments are based on flagrant errors in understanding and interpretation while others are not supported by current data or are inconsistent with other nutritional recommendations. This paper addresses current criticisms of GI and outlines reasons why GI is valid: (1) GI methodology is accurate and precise enough for practical use; (2) GI is a property of foods; and (3) GI is biologically meaningful and relevant to virtually everyone. Current dietary guidelines recommend increased consumption of whole grains and dietary fibre but do not mention GI. However, this is illogical because the evidence that GI affects health outcomes is at least as good or better than that for whole grains and fibre. GI is a novel concept from a regulatory point of view and a number of problems need to be addressed to successfully translate GI knowledge into practice. The problems are not insurmountable but no progress can be made until bias and misunderstanding about GI can be overcome and there is better agreement about what is the actual state of knowledge on GI so that the real issues can be identified and addressed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ejcn.2013.27

Cites

116 of 116 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolever, T. M. S.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Wolever, T M S
Venue
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Published
2013-02-13
Volume
67
Issue
5
Pages
522-531
ISSN
  • 0954-3007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5640
OpenAlex
W2122695788
Cited by
108
References
116
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • VINNOVA
  • Health Canada
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (79382_1)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
glycemic index, carbohydrate quality, whole grains, dietary fiber, dietary guidelines, health outcomes, food regulation, dietary recommendations
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Diet, Dietary Carbohydrates, Humans, Nutrition Policy, Glycemic Index, Validation Studies as Topic

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