Developing a methodology for assigning glycaemic index values to foods consumed across Europe.

There is growing evidence that the glycaemic index (GI) of the diet is important with respect to body weight and metabolic disease risk. However, research is limited by the paucity of GI values for commonly consumed carbohydrate-rich foods in European countries. A new methodology has been developed for consistent assignment of GI values to foods across five European databases used in the Diogenes intervention study. GI values were assigned according to five decreasing levels of confidence (1) Measured values for specific foods; (2) Published values from published sources; (3) Equivalent values where published values for similar foods existed; (4) Estimated values assigned as one of three values representing low/medium/high GI ranges and (5) Nominal values assigned as 70, where no other value could be assigned with sufficient confidence. GI values were assigned to 5105 foods. In food records collected at baseline, the contribution to carbohydrate intake of foods assigned levels 1-2 ranged from 16% to 43% depending on country, and this increased to 53-81% including level 3 foods. The degree of confidence to assigned GI values differed across Europe. This standardized approach of assigning GI values will be made available to other researchers to facilitate further investigation into the effects of dietary GI on health.

Dietary strategy to manipulate ad libitum macronutrient intake, and glycaemic index, across eight European countries in the Diogenes Study.

The aim of this study was to describe the development and implementation of a multifaceted, low-fat, weight-loss strategy for a Pan-European randomized controlled dietary intervention study, Diogenes. There were 891 families with at least one overweight/obese parent who underwent screening. Eligible, overweight/obese adults followed an 8-week weight-loss phase with a fixed low-energy diet (800 kcal). On attaining weight loss of > or = 8%, families were randomized to a 6- or 12-month low-fat (25-30%E) diet either based on national dietary guidelines or one of four interventions: low protein (LP)/low glycaemic index (LGI), LP/high GI (HGI), high protein (HP)/LGI and HP/HGI. The impact of each diet in preventing weight (re)gain was tested. A points-based system was used to manipulate dietary protein and carbohydrate. Manipulating carbohydrate composition involved substituting foods with a relatively high or low GI. A questionnaire was designed and completed by study investigators, providing feedback on the dietary intervention methods used to inform future interventions. The points system allowed macronutrient manipulations without compromising dietary flexibility or enforcing energy restrictions. Reported centre/participant differences in the ease of implementing the intervention may reflect dietary diversity and personal preferences for specific weight-management strategies. The points system provides a useful starting point for designing improved experimental paradigms for the manipulation of dietary intake in future trials.

The effect of a low-fat, high-protein or high-carbohydrate ad libitum diet on weight loss maintenance and metabolic risk factors.

BACKGROUND: High-protein (HP) diets are often advocated for weight reduction and weight loss maintenance. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the effect of low-fat, high-carbohydrate (HC) and low-fat, HP ad libitum diets on weight maintenance after weight loss induced by a very low-calorie diet, and on metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy obese subjects. DESIGN: Forty-eight subjects completed the study that consisted of an energy restriction period of 5-6 weeks followed by a weight maintenance period of 12 weeks. During weight maintenance subjects received maltodextrin (HC group) or protein (HP group) (casein (HPC subgroup) or whey (HPW subgroup)) supplements (2 x 25 g per day), respectively and consumed a low-fat diet. RESULTS: Subjects in the HP diet group showed significantly better weight maintenance after weight loss (2.3 kg difference, P=0.04) and fat mass reduction (2.2 kg difference, P=0.02) than subjects in the HC group. Triglyceride (0.6 mM difference, P=0.01) and glucagon (9.6 pg ml(-1) difference, P=0.02) concentrations increased more in the HC diet group, while glucose (0.3 mM difference, P=0.02) concentration increased more in the HP diet group. Changes in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, insulin, HOMAir index, HbA1c, leptin and adiponectin concentrations did not differ between the diets. No differences were found between the casein- or whey-supplemented HP groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that low-fat, high-casein or whey protein weight maintenance diets are more effective for weight control than low-fat, HC diets and do not adversely affect metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors in weight-reduced moderately obese subjects without metabolic or cardiovascular complications.