Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The effect of dietary education incorporating information about the glycaemic index of carbohydrate was tested against standard dietary advice in a randomized controlled study in 51 newly diagnosed patients with Type 2 diabetes treated as out‐patients with diet only over a 12‐week study period. Outcome was assessed by dietary analysis of 3‐day diet diaries, fasting blood glucose, fructosamine, total cholesterol, LDL‐cholesterol, HDL‐cholesterol, and triglycerides. Dietary analysis indicated that the group who received low glycaemic advice not only had a significantly lower calculated mean diet glycaemic index intake (77 ± 1.1 (SEM) vs 82 ± 1%, p < 0.01) but also had a lower fat intake (25 ± 1 vs 32 ± 2% of total energy day −1 , p < 0.001), a higher carbohydrate intake (49 ± 2% vs 44 ± 1% of total energy day −1 , p < 0.05) and non‐starch polysaccharide intake (21 ± 1.5 vs 14 ± 1 g, p < 0.01). There was a significantly greater within‐group fall in fructosamine (3.8 ± 0.2 to 3.2 ± 0.2 mmol −1 vs 3.6 ± 0.2 to 3.6 ± 0.3 mmol −1 , p < 0.05) and cholesterol (6.1 ± 0.3 to 5.4 ± 0.3 mmol −1 vs. 5.6 + 0.2 to 5.3 ± 0.1 mmol −1 , p < 0.05) in the low glycaemic index group. A significant correlation was detected between the glycaemic index of the diet and the fall in fructosamine ( r = 0.54, p < 0.01) and fasting blood glucose ( r = 0.41, p < 0.05) which could not be demonstrated with the changes in fat or non‐starch polysaccharides content of the diet, irrespective of the original study group, suggesting an independent role of the change in glycaemic index of the carbohydrate in the diet. Subjects given advice to lower the glycaemic index of the carbohydrate in their diet achieve a lower calculated dietary glycaemic intake than those who do not. This appears to have a beneficial effect on the intake of other nutrients and results in an improvement in metabolic control.
Frost et al. (Sun,) studied this question.