背景:超加工食品(UPFs)在美国饮食中包含大部分卡路里。血糖指数(GI)和负荷(GL)是根据食物中碳水化合物对餐后血糖的影响来衡量食物中碳水化合物的质量和数量的指标。高UPFs和GI/GL的饮食与慢性代谢性疾病相关,但它们之间的关系尚不清楚。
目的:我们的目的是检查分配给NOVA食品加工组的食品的GI和GL。我们假设,与加工食品(PRF)和UPF相比,最小加工食品(MPF)中的GI和GL最低(PRF和UPF之间没有差异)。
方法:健康个体对1,995种食品产生的GI和GL值从已发表的来源进行了整理。根据NOVA分类,按处理级别对食品进行手动编码。此外,由于加工对血糖潜能的影响可能因食物类型而异,食物被编码为八组(豆类,坚果,和种子;饮料;乳制品;脂肪和糖果;水果;谷物;鱼,肉,和家禽;和蔬菜)。使用多级线性建模来确定α值为0.05的显著性。
结果:食品加工对GI和GL的影响与我们的假设相反,因为不同加工水平的平均值没有显着差异:GI(MPF:54.1±19.5,PRF:53.2±18.9,UPF:49.3±18.1;p=0.712),GL:(MPF:17.1±10.3,PRF:15.8±12.4,UPF;11.5±7.9;p=0.890)。在食物群体中,食品加工组与胃肠道之间没有显著关联(p=0.184),但GL与谷物和蔬菜呈正负相关,分别(p<0.001)。
结论:在经过分析的食物中,GI和GL在处理级别之间没有差异,谷物和蔬菜的混合发现。与UPF相关的任何潜在不良结果不太可能与对血糖的影响有关。
BACKGROUND: Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) comprise most calories in the United States diet. Glycemic index (GI) and load (GL) are measures of the quality and quantity of carbohydrates in food based on their effect on postprandial blood glucose. Diets high in UPFs and GI/GL are associated with chronic metabolic diseases but the relationship between them is unclear.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine the GI and GL of foods assigned to NOVA food processing groups. We hypothesized that GI and GL would be lowest in minimally processed foods (MPF) compared to processed (PRF) and UPF (with no difference between PRF and UPF).
METHODS: GI and GL values produced by healthy individuals for 1,995 food items were collated from published sources. Food items were manually coded by processing levels according to NOVA Classification. In addition, as the effects of processing on glycemic potential may vary between types of foods, food items were coded into eight groups (Beans, Nuts, and Seeds; Beverages; Dairy; Fats and Sweets; Fruit; Grains; Fish, Meat, and Poultry; and Vegetables). Multilevel linear modeling was used to determine significance with an alpha value of 0.05.
RESULTS: The effect of food processing on GI and GL was contrary to our hypothesis as means did not differ significantly across processing levels: GI (MPF: 54.1 ± 19.5, PRF: 53.2 ± 18.9, UPF: 49.3 ± 18.1; p=0.712), GL: (MPF: 17.1 ± 10.3, PRF: 15.8 ± 12.4, UPF; 11.5 ± 7.9; p=0.890). Within food groups, there was no significant association between food processing groups and GI (p=0.184), but GL was inversely and positively associated with grains and vegetables, respectively (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Across analyzed foods, GI and GL did not differ between processing levels, with mixed findings for grains and vegetables. Any potential adverse outcomes associated with UPF are unlikely to be related to effects on glycemia.