CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,168Food composition and propertiesDiabetes Management and ResearchDiet, Metabolism, and Disease

The glycemic index: methodology and clinical implications

Wolever, TM, Jenkins, DJ, Jenkins, AL, Josse, RG·1991·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
DOI 10.1093/ajcn/54.5.846
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There is controversy regarding the clinical utility of classifying foods according to their glycemic responses by using the glycemic index (GI). Part of the controversy is due to methodologic variables that can markedly affect the interpretation of glycemic responses and the GI values obtained. Recent studies support the clinical utility of the GI. Within limits determined by the expected GI difference and by the day-to-day variation of glycemic responses, the GI predicts the ranking of the glycemic potential of different meals in individual subjects. In long-term trials, low-GI diets result in modest improvements in overall blood glucose control in patients with insulin-dependent and non-insulin-dependent diabetes. Of perhaps greater therapeutic importance is the ability of low-GI diets to reduce insulin secretion and lower blood lipid concentrations in patients with hypertriglyceridemia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ajcn/54.5.846

Cites

57 of 57 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?

  • The average of three trials of the reference food reduces the variation of mean glycaemic index values.

    “The average of three trials of the reference food has been shown to reduce the variation of mean GI values (Wolever et al. 1991(Wolever et al. , 2002)).”

    From Glycaemic index methodology (2005) · cites this paper as Wolever et al. 1991

  • An unrepresentative response to the standard food is suspected if the subject's GI values for other test foods are also outliers in the same direction, or if there is large variability for repeated standard tests.

    “An unrepresentative response to the standard food is suspected if the subject's GI values for other test foods are also outliers in the same direction, or if there is large variability for the repeated standard tests (Wolever et al. 1991).”

    From Glycaemic index methodology (2005) · cites this paper as Wolever et al. 1991

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wolever, T., Jenkins, D., Jenkins, A., & Josse, R.
Affiliations
St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1991-11
Volume
54
Issue
5
Pages
846-854
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1093/ajcn/54.5.846
OpenAlex
W1962752397
Cited by
1,168
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 54
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Diet, Metabolism, and Disease
Keywords
glycemic index, glycemic response, low glycemic index diet, glycemic control, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, insulin secretion, hypertriglyceridemia, serum lipids
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Blood Specimen Collection, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Dietary Fats, Dietary Proteins, Fasting, Food, Humans, Methods, Models, Biological, Reference Standards, Time Factors

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