perceived barriers to application of glycaemic index valid concerns or lost in translation感知障碍血糖指数的应用有效的担忧或迷失在翻译.pdfVIP

Nutrients 2011, 3, 330-340; doi:10.3390/nu3030330 OPEN ACCESS nutrients ISSN 2072-6643 /journal/nutrients Review Perceived Barriers to Application of Glycaemic Index: Valid Concerns or Lost in Translation? Shannan M. Grant 1,* and Thomas M. S. Wolever 1,2 1 Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, 150 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3E2, Canada 2 Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, St. Michael’sHospital, 61 Queen Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 2T2, Canada; E-Mail: thomas.wolever@utoronto.ca * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: shannan.grant@utoronto.ca; Tel.: + 1-416-978-0548. Received: 10 January 2011; in revised form: 17 February 2011 / Accepted: 23 February 2011 / Published: 28 February 2011 Abstract: The term glycaemic-index (GI) originally appeared in the literature in the early 1980s. GI categorizes carbohydrate according to glycaemic effect postprandially. Since its inception, GI has obtained and maintained interest of academics and clinicians globally. Upon review of GI literature, it becomes clear that the clinical utility of GI is a source of controversy. Can and should GI be applied clinically? There are academics and clinicians on both sides of the argument. Certainly, this controversy has been a stimulus for the evolution of GI methodology and application research, but may also negatively impact clinicians’perception of GI if misunderstood. This article reviews two assessments of GI that are often