Dietary glycemic index and load : associations with cardiometabolic abnormalities amongst healthy Lebanese adults

Abstract

The Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) is a major health concern, putting individuals at an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus and mortality. Preventive strategies mainly focus on diet as a modifiable risk factor. Recently, carbohydrates and their glycemic response are being recognized as potential MetS drivers. The glycemic response is dictated by both the glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL). The objectives of this study were to: (1) determine the GI of Lebanese food items based on pertinent literature, (2) estimate dietary GL for a sample of healthy Lebanese adults, (3) examine the association of dietary GI and GL with fasting blood lipid levels, fasting glycemia and blood pressure and (4) investigate the association between dietary GI and GL and the MetS in a sample of healthy Lebanese adults. This is a cross-sectional study of healthy Lebanese adults aged ≥18 years (n=283) residing in the Greater Beirut area. Using standardized techniques, anthropometric measurements and biochemical analyses were performed. A multi-component questionnaire was administered to study participants, tackling family history, medical history, and sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics. Physical activity was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Dietary habits were assessed in an interview setting by trained dietitians by means of an 86-item, semi-quantitative, and culture specific food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). GI and GL values were assigned for each food based on the International GI table and other pertinent literature. Total dietary GI and GL were calculated for study participants. The MetS was diagnosed based on the Harmonized IDF definition. Average dietary GI and GL were estimated at 59.87 ± 7.99 and 209.75 ± 100.26, respectively with significantly higher values in those having MetS compared to their non-MetS counterparts (61.16 ± 8.19 vs 59.25 ± 7.77 and 225.8 ± 106.2 vs 201.54 ± 95.79). Logistic regression analysis s