Systematic review shows low-GI diets improve glycemic control in diverse populations, suggesting nutritional strategy for metabolic health.
Background: Although low-Glycemic-Index (low-GI) diets are proposed to improve glucose balance and lipid metabolism, findings from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) remain inconsistent. Objective: To comprehensively evaluate the overall effects of low-GI diets on glycemic and lipid profiles across diverse populations and to identify potential differences in outcomes among subgroups. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted following PRISMA guidelines, searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science through April 2025. Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses explored heterogeneity and robustness. Results: Twenty-five RCTs involving 1,973 participants (12-75 years) were included. Low-GI diets significantly reduced fasting blood glucose (FBG; -0.19 mmol/L, p = 0.04), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c; -0.22%, p < 0.01), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; -0.15 mmol/L, p < 0.01) compared with control diets. Although not statistically significant, low-GI diets tended to increase High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (HDL-C) and reduce Fasting Insulin (FI), Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), Triglycerides (TG), and Total Cholesterol (TC). Subgroup analyses revealed stronger benefits in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM), individuals with baseline FBG ≥ 6.1 mmol/L, trials with intervention duration ≥ 12 weeks, and people in the Asia-Pacific region. Sensitivity analyses provided confirmation of the reliability of these outcomes. Conclusions: Low-GI diets improve glycemic control and modestly lower LDL-C, particularly in metabolically high-risk populations and with sustained intervention. These results highlight low-- GI diets as a practical nutritional strategy for metabolic health, while suggesting that baseline glucose status, intervention length, and population characteristics influence their effectiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: