China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Nutritional Ergogenic Aids: Introduction, Definitions and Regulatory Issues
Published in Ira Wolinsky, Judy A. Driskell, Nutritional Ergogenic Aids, 2004
Ira Wolinsky, Judy A. Driskell
The independent effects of exercise training and a-lipoic acid supplementation on glucose transport in skeletal muscle of obese Zucker rats has recently been studied.57,58 During an oral glucose tolerance test, exercise training alone or in combination with R-lipoic acid (30 mg/kg/d for 6 wks) resulted in a significant decrease in glucose (26-32%) and insulin (29-30%) responses compared with sedentary rats. R-lipoic acid alone reduced (19%) the glucose-insulin index, an indicator of increased insulin sensitivity, which was reduced further (48-52%) in the combined exercise and lipoic acid group. Exercise or lipoic acid supplementation individually increased insulin-mediated glucose transport (44-57%) in soleus muscle. Supplemental a-lipoic acid improved glucose transport by decreasing protein carbonyls levels, whereas exercise training increased GLUT-4 protein contents. Thus, lipoic acid interacts additively with endurance exercise training to improve insulin action in insulin-resistant skeletal muscle.
Effect of Dietary Insulinemia on All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality: Results From a Cohort Study
Published in Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 2020
Mohsen Mazidi, Niki Katsiki, Dimitri P. Mikhailidis, Maciej Banach
Although some dietary factors have been shown to effect IR and secretion (19), dietary patterns or indices that account for the complex interactions among nutrients and foods might be more predictive than diet–disease associations (20). At present, the glycemic index (GI) is the most common dietary index used to assess the ability of diet to stimulate insulin secretion. It classifies carbohydrate-containing foods by their ability to increase postprandial blood glucose levels relative to glucose or white bread (21). Therefore, the GI indirectly assesses immediate insulin responses to food intake. However, it also neglects some critical dietary factors such as proteins and fats that are important for insulin secretion. Moreover, the GI does not quantify the long-term effects of diet on glycemia (21). This index is also not predictive of C-peptide concentrations, mainly due to the fact that the insulin index, similar to the GI, assesses postprandial insulin response to the intake of specific foods. Thus, it is limited to quantifying the short-term insulin response rather than the long-term effects of diets on insulinemia (21).
The Association between Dietary Insulin Index and Load with Gastric Cancer in Afghanistan
Published in Nutrition and Cancer, 2022
Freshta Amiry, Ahmad Mujtaba Barekzai, Azadeh Aminianfar, Ahmad Esmaillzadeh
We considered the components of mixed dishes. Then, we converted all items in the FFQ into a separate food item. Food insulin index (FII) refers to the incremental insulin area under the curve over 2 h in response to the consumption of a 1000-kJ portion of the test food divided by the area under the curve after ingestion of a 1000-kJ portion of the reference food. Food insulin index for each food item was then obtained from the study of Brand-Miller et al (26). For food items in the present study that was not available in the food list published by Brand-Miller et al., we used the FII of similar food items. To determine dietary insulin load (DIL), we calculated the insulin load of each food by the following formula:
The Association of Empirical Dietary Index for Hyperinsulinemia with the Risk of Cancer and Cancer Mortality: A Meta-analysis of Observational Studies
Published in Nutrition and Cancer, 2023
Hamid Ahmadirad, Farshad Teymoori, Reyhane Nateghi, Arman Shabanian, Parvin Mirmiran
Insulin load (I.L.) and insulin index (II) are the closest indices to EDIH, and these indices were suggested to predict circulating insulin after intake of any food item compared to glucose or white bread as reference foods (35). A previous meta-analysis indicated no significant association between I.L. plus II and the risk of various cancer types such as colorectal, pancreatic, and endometrial cancer. However, these indices have a significant positive association with cancer mortality (36). This controversial finding of II and I.L. compared to the EDIH with the risk of cancer incidents may be justified by the type of cancer. In our study, EDIH was positively related to breast and digestive system cancers (23, 26). It seems that these two types of cancer are more affected by diet than glioma (37) or endometrial (38) cancers. Another justification may be related to the construction method as well as the frequency and types of food items that constitute these indices. II and I.L. are developed using most of the food items in a usual diet and directly calculate the insulin secretion after consuming these items, then calculate the overall dietary II or IL (35). However, EDIH was developed based on the two categories of dietary food groups that showed a positive or negative association with serum C-peptide using stepwise linear regression models in large sample size prospective cohort studies, and many food items that were not significantly related to serum C-peptide were ignored (16). Although II and I.L. could better present the overall dietary potential of insulin secretion, EDIH focused on the main food groups that positively or negatively determined the insulinemic potential of a usual diet. So it seems that EDIH has a better power for identifying the insulinemic patterns, and those who had more adherences to this, could thus have a better prediction of the cancer risk due to the insulinemic potential of a usual diet. What has been mentioned is approved by the significant positive relationship between EDIH and cancer incidence observed in the present study.