The use of glycaemic index tables to predict glycaemic index of composite breakfast meals
Open accessAbstract
The applicability of the glycaemic index (GI) in the context of mixed meals and diets is still debatable. The objective of the present study was to investigate the predictability of measured GI in composite breakfast meals when calculated from table values, and to develop prediction equations using meal components. Furthermore, we aimed to study the relationship between GI and insulinaemic index (II). The study was a randomised cross-over meal test including twenty-eight healthy young men. Thirteen breakfast meals and a reference meal were tested. All meals contained 50 g available carbohydrate, but differed considerably in energy and macronutrient composition. Venous blood was sampled for 2 h and analysed for glucose and insulin. Prediction equations were made by regression analysis. No association was found between predicted and measured GI. The meal content of energy and fat was inversely associated with GI (R(2) 0.93 and 0.88, respectively; P<0.001). Carbohydrate content (expressed as percentage of energy) was positively related to GI (R(2) 0.80; P<0.001). Using multivariate analysis the GI of meals was best predicted by fat and protein contents (R(2) 0.93; P<0.001). There was no association between GI and II. In conclusion, the present results show that the GI of mixed meals calculated by table values does not predict the measured GI and furthermore that carbohydrates do not play the most important role for GI in mixed breakfast meals. Our prediction models show that the GI of mixed meals is more strongly correlated either with fat and protein content, or with energy content, than with carbohydrate content alone. Furthermore, GI was not correlated with II.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
The data in Flint et al. 2004 are difficult to interpret and their conclusion that GI of mixed meals generally cannot be predicted is invalid.
“Accordingly, the data presented in the paper by Flint et al. (2004) are difficult to interpret and render the conclusions of these authors that in general the GI of mixed meals can not be predicted invalid.”
From Glycaemic index methodology (2005) · cites this paper as Flint et al. 2004
The Conclusion (page unavailable) says GI could not be predicted for the study’s composite breakfast meals using international GI tables. It does not conclude that mixed-meal GI generally cannot be predicted; instead, it says prediction may require energy, fat and protein content. The judgment that Flint et al.’s data are difficult to interpret and their conclusion invalid is the citing authors’ own criticism, not a finding attributed to Flint et al. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn Flint et al. 2004, a stronger relationship was observed for fat, protein, or energy content than for carbohydrate alone.
“A stronger relationship was observed for either fat or protein or energy content than for CHO alone.”
From Glycaemic index methodology (2005) · cites this paper as Flint et al. 2004
The Abstract and 'Prediction of glycaemic index based on meal components' say that fat and protein together, or energy content, predicted glycaemic index more strongly than carbohydrate content alone. The claim changes 'fat and protein' to 'fat or protein': the 'Relationships between measured glycaemic index and meal variables' section does not support protein individually being stronger, reporting a lower R² for protein amount (0.65) than for carbohydrate as a percentage of energy (0.80). (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA GI value might not be appropriate when fat intake is high.
“In this respect it should also be noted that a value of GI might not be appropriate when the intake of fat is high (see Flint et al. 2004).”
From Glycaemic index methodology (2005) · cites this paper as Flint et al. 2004
In Flint et al. 2004, the GI of mixed breakfast meals calculated using GI table values did not correlate with GI measured in vivo.
“In their study they could not show that the GI of mixed breakfast meals, as calculated by using GI table values, correlated with the GI as measured in vivo.”
From Glycaemic index methodology (2005) · cites this paper as Flint et al. 2004
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 50 · Cited by 202
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Augustin LS, Franceschi S, Jenkins DJA, Kendall CWC & La Vecchia C (2002) Glycemic index in chronic disease: a review. Eur J Clin Nutr 56, 1049-1071.
- Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (1998) The role of glycemic index in food choice. In Carbo- hydrates in Human Nutrition: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, Food and Nutrition Paper no. 66, pp. 25 -37. Rome: WHO.
- Willet WC (2002) Carbohydrates for better and worse. In Eat, Drink and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating, pp. 85 -100. New York: Simon & Schuster.
- Authors
- Flint, A., Møller, B. K., Raben, A., Pedersen, D., Tetens, I., Holst, J. J., & Astrup, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Copenhagen (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Flint, Anne
- Venue
- British Journal of Nutrition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2004-06
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 979-989
- ISSN
- 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-2662
- OpenAlex
- W1970524708
- Cited by
- 202
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 14.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diet, Metabolism, and Disease
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Diet and metabolism studies
- Keywords
- glycemic index, mixed meal, breakfast, dietary lipid level, dietary protein level, dietary energy level, carbohydrate content, postprandial blood glucose, postprandial insulin
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Animals, Bread, Edible Grain, Dietary Carbohydrates, Dietary Fats, Dietary Proteins, Energy Metabolism, Food, Humans, Insulin, Male, Milk, Glycemic Index
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
