Mann (1) and Brand-Miller et al. (2) state in this issue of Diabetes Care that study subjects have been on previous nutrition therapies before the implementation of low–versus high–glycemic index diets. Although this may be the case, in reviewing the studies included in the meta-analysis, only two studies state this clearly. The first is the study by Fontvieille et al. (3), in which the low–compared with high–glycemic index diet did not improve HbA1c levels over 5 weeks but did result in a decrease in fructosamine (P < 0.05). The second is the study by Heilbronn et al. (4), wherein subjects participated in 12 weeks of energy restriction. After 4 weeks on a weight loss diet similar in composition to the average Australian diet, the subjects were randomized to a low–versus high–glycemic index diet for 8 weeks. At week 12 there was no statistically significant difference in improving glycemic control or weight loss between the low–and high–glycemic index groups. However, if subjects in the reported trials had been on previous food/meal planning approaches, it supports the position of the American Diabetes Association, which holds that there is not evidence “to recommend use of low–glycemic index diets as a primary strategy in food/meal planning,” (5) but as is suggested in the editorial, “glycemic responses of foods can best be used for fine-tuning glycemic control” (6).

There are three questions that need answering in order to assist clinicians in deciding on an intervention approach. First, have two different approaches been compared and which approach has the better outcome? This is the question that Brand-Miller et al. addressed in their meta-analysis (7). They determined that low–glycemic index diets compared with high–glycemic index diets resulted in a small but significant improvement in glycemia (7.4% reduction in glycated proteins). Although Brand-Miller et al. (2) state in their letter that the change in HbA1c is >0.6%, they also state in their conclusion that “after an average duration of 10 weeks, subjects who were following low–glycemic index diets had HbA1c levels ∼0.4% lower than those ingesting a high–glycemic index diet.” But regardless if it is 0.4 or 0.6%, it is still less than other nutrition intervention outcomes cited in the editorial, which report decreases in HbA1c of ∼1–2% and, therefore, are better choices for primary nutrition therapy interventions (8,9).

The second question is of equal importance. What is the expected outcome from the intervention? Table 1 lists the studies included in the meta-analysis with a duration of 6 weeks or longer, their baseline HbA1c values, and the study-end HbA1c value. The low–glycemic index intervention resulted in decreases from baseline to study end in HbA1c ranging from 0.0 to 0.7%, with an average per subject decrease of 0.35%. Readers can decide the clinical significance of this change for themselves.

The final question is also of importance to clinicians. Can people with diabetes implement the intervention outside of a research center? Although not addressed in these studies, one clue does emerge from the reported research. In the longest study (10), which was 1 year, at the end of the year both groups reported diets with similar glycemic index values, suggesting that it may be difficult in the real world to change the overall glycemic index of an individual’s food intake over the long term.

The bottom line is that dietitians and other health care providers will make the decision on which food/meal-planning approach their patients with diabetes will understand, be able to implement, and benefit from. Some individuals will benefit from simple guidelines as to what to eat and when, others will benefit from carbohydrate counting or exchange lists, moderate weight loss, and yes, some may even benefit from the use of low–glycemic index foods. However, the research suggests that the use of low–glycemic index diets is not as effective as other nutrition interventions. And ultimately, people with diabetes will decide what foods they eat and, by using their glucose monitoring results, determine if their choices have led to their target goals.

Table 1

Changes in HbA1c from baseline to study end from low- and high-glycemic index diets

Reference, number of subjects (n), and study lengthBaseline HbA1c: low- vs. high-GI dietStudy end HbA1c: low- vs. high-GI dietHbA1c changes from baseline with the implementation of the low-GI diet
Heilbronn et al. (4), n = 45, 4 wks on weight loss diet followed by 8 weeks on weight loss diets of low or high GI 6.7%, after 4 wks of     weight loss diets: 6.65 vs. 6.35% 6.04 vs. 6.06% After implementation of the GI diets, a 0.6% decrease in low GI, not significantly different than high-GI diet; no difference in weight loss from low- vs. high-GI diets 
Gilbertson et al. (10), n = 104, 52 weeks 8.3 vs. 8.6% 8.0 vs. 8.6% 0.3% decrease in low-GI group, although reported GIs were the same in both groups at study end 
Giacco et al. (11), n = 63, 24 weeks 8.8 vs. 8.8% 8.6% (compliant group) vs. 9.1% 0.2% decrease in low-GI compliant group 
Brand et al. (12), n = 16, 12 weeks 7.7 vs. 7.7% 7.0 vs. 7.9% 0.7% decrease in low-GI group 
Collier, et al. (12), n = 7, 6 weeks 10.0 vs. 9.9% 10.0 vs. 9.86% No difference at study end 
Reference, number of subjects (n), and study lengthBaseline HbA1c: low- vs. high-GI dietStudy end HbA1c: low- vs. high-GI dietHbA1c changes from baseline with the implementation of the low-GI diet
Heilbronn et al. (4), n = 45, 4 wks on weight loss diet followed by 8 weeks on weight loss diets of low or high GI 6.7%, after 4 wks of     weight loss diets: 6.65 vs. 6.35% 6.04 vs. 6.06% After implementation of the GI diets, a 0.6% decrease in low GI, not significantly different than high-GI diet; no difference in weight loss from low- vs. high-GI diets 
Gilbertson et al. (10), n = 104, 52 weeks 8.3 vs. 8.6% 8.0 vs. 8.6% 0.3% decrease in low-GI group, although reported GIs were the same in both groups at study end 
Giacco et al. (11), n = 63, 24 weeks 8.8 vs. 8.8% 8.6% (compliant group) vs. 9.1% 0.2% decrease in low-GI compliant group 
Brand et al. (12), n = 16, 12 weeks 7.7 vs. 7.7% 7.0 vs. 7.9% 0.7% decrease in low-GI group 
Collier, et al. (12), n = 7, 6 weeks 10.0 vs. 9.9% 10.0 vs. 9.86% No difference at study end 

GI, glycemic index.

1.
Mann J: Meta-analysis of low-glycemic index diets in the management of diabetes (Letter).
Diabetes Care
26
:
3364
,
2003
2.
Brand-Miller JC, Petocz P, Colagiuri S: Meta-analysis of low–glycemic index diets in the management of diabetes (Letter).
Diabetes Care
26
:
3363
,
2003
3.
Fontvieille AM, Rizkalla SW, Penfornis A, Acosta M, Bornet FRJ, Slama G: The use of low glycaemic index foods improves metabolic control of diabetic patients over five weeks.
Diabet Med
9
:
444
–450,
1992
4.
Heilbronn LK, Noakes M, Clifton PM: The effect of high- and low-glycemic index energy restricted diets on plasma lipid and glucose profiles in type 2 diabetic subjects with varying glycemic control.
J Am Coll Nutr
21
:
120
–127,
2002
5.
American Diabetes Association: Evidence-based nutrition principles and recommendations for the treatment and prevention of diabetes and related complications (Position Statement).
Diabetes Care
26 (Suppl. 1)
:
S51
–S61,
2003
6.
Franz MJ: The glycemic index: not the most effective nutrition therapy intervention (Editorial).
Diabetes Care
26
:
2466
–2468,
2003
7.
Brand-Miller J, Hayne S, Petocz P, Colagiuri S: Low–glycemic index diets in the management of diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Diabetes Care
26
:
2261
–2267,
2003
8.
Pastors JG, Warshaw H, Daly A, Franz M, Kulkarni K: The evidence for the effectiveness of medical nutrition therapy in diabetes management.
Diabetes Care
25
:
bp608
–613,
2002
9.
Pastors JG, Franz MJ, Warshaw H, Daly A, Arnold L: How effective is medical nutrition therapy in diabetes care?
J Am Diet Assoc
103
:
827
–831,
2003
10.
Gilbertson HR, Brand-Miller JC, Thorburn AW, Evans E, Chondros P, Werther GA: The effect of flexible low glycemic index dietary advice versus measured carbohydrate exchange diets on glycemic control in children with type 1 diabetes.
Diabetes Care
24
:
1137
–1143,
2001
11.
Giacco R, Parillo M, Rivellese AA, Lasorella G, Giacco A, D’Episcopo L, Riccardi G: Long-term dietary treatment with increased amounts of fiber-rich low–glycemic index natural foods improves blood glucose control and reduces the number of hypoglycemic events in type 1 diabetic patients.
Diabetes Care
23
:
1461
–1466,
2000
12.
Brand J, Colagiuri S, Crossman S, Allen A, Roberts D, Truswell A: Low–glycemic index foods improve long-term glycemic control in NIDDM.
Diabetes Care
14
:
95
–102,
1991
13.
Collier G, Giudici S, Salmusky J, Wolever T, Helman G, Wesson V: Low glycaemic index starchy food improve glucose control and lower serum cholesterol in diabetic children.
Diab Nutr Metab
1
:
11
–18,
1988