Effect of Legumes as Part of a Low Glycemic Index Diet on Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Pada diabetesi tipe 2, konsumsi polong (low glicemic index diet) memperbaiki kontrol glikemik dan menurunkan risiko penyakit jantung koroner.

---

Effect of Legumes as Part of a Low Glycemic Index Diet on Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus A Randomized Controlled Trial

David J. A. Jenkins, MD; Cyril W. C. Kendall, PhD; Livia S. A. Augustin, PhD; Sandra Mitchell, RD; Sandhya Sahye-Pudaruth, RD; Sonia Blanco Mejia, MD; Laura Chiavaroli, MSc; Arash Mirrahimi, MSc; Christopher Ireland, BSc; Balachandran Bashyam, PhD; Edward Vidgen, BSc; Russell J. de Souza, ScD; John L. Sievenpiper, MD; Judy Coveney, RD; Lawrence A. Leiter, MD; Robert G. Josse, MD

 

Arch Intern Med. 2012;():1-8. doi:10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.70

Background  Legumes, including beans, chickpeas, and lentils, are among the lowest glycemic index (GI) foods and have been recommended in national diabetes mellitus (DM) guidelines. Yet, to our knowledge, they have never been used specifically to lower the GI of the diet. We have therefore undertaken a study of low-GI foods in type 2 DM with a focus on legumes in the intervention.

Methods  A total of 121 participants with type 2 DM were randomized to either a low-GI legume diet that encouraged participants to increase legume intake by at least 1 cup per day, or to increase insoluble fiber by consumption of whole wheat products, for 3 months. The primary outcome was change in hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) values with calculated coronary heart disease (CHD) risk score as a secondary outcome.

Results  The low-GI legume diet reduced HbA_1c values by −0.5% (95% CI, −0.6% to −0.4%) and the high wheat fiber diet reduced HbA_1c values by −0.3% (95% CI, −0.4% to −0.2%). The relative reduction in HbA_1c values after the low-GI legume diet was greater than after the high wheat fiber diet by −0.2% (95% CI, −0.3% to −0.1%; P < .001). The respective CHD risk reduction on the low-GI legume diet was −0.8% (95% CI, −1.4% to −0.3%; P = .003), largely owing to a greater relative reduction in systolic blood pressure on the low-GI legume diet compared with the high wheat fiber diet (−4.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, −7.0 to −2.1 mm Hg; P < .001).

Conclusion  Incorporation of legumes as part of a low-GI diet improved both glycemic control and reduced calculated CHD risk score in type 2 DM.

Caffeine effective as an analgesic adjuvant

Caffeine effective as an analgesic adjuvant
September 17, 2012
PEARLS 362, July 2012, written by Brian R McAvoy

Clinical question: How effective is caffeine as an analgesic adjuvant for acute pain in adults?

Bottom line: Adding caffeine (at a dose equivalent to a mug of coffee, ie, about 100mg) to a standard dose of common analgesics, such as paracetamol or ibuprofen, increased the number of people with acute pain who experience a good level of pain relief (at least 50% of the maximum) by 5 to 10% (NNT* 15). The most common conditions studied were postoperative dental pain, postpartum pain, menstrual period pain and headache. One serious adverse event was reported with caffeine but was considered unrelated to any study medication. *NNT = number needed to treat to benefit 1 individual.

Caveat: Most comparisons individually demonstrated numerical superiority with caffeine but not statistical superiority.

Context: Caffeine is commonly used as a component in analgesics available from pharmacies without a prescription in the belief that it enhances analgesic efficacy.

Cochrane Systematic Review: Derry CJ et al. Caffeine as an analgesic adjuvant for acute pain in adults. Cochrane Reviews, 2012, Issue 3. Article No. CD009281. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009281.pub2. This review contains 19 studies involving 7238 participants.

Pearls are an independent product of the Cochrane primary care group and are meant for educational use and not to guide clinical care.

Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: use of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners

J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012 May;112(5):739-58. Epub 2012 Apr 25.
Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: use of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners.
Fitch C, Keim KS; Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

Source
West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA.

Erratum in
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012 Aug;112(8):1279.

Abstract
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that consumers can safely enjoy a range of nutritive sweeteners and nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS) when consumed within an eating plan that is guided by current federal nutrition recommendations, such as the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Dietary Reference Intakes, as well as individual health goals and personal preference. A preference for sweet taste is innate and sweeteners can increase the pleasure of eating. Nutritive sweeteners contain carbohydrate and provide energy. They occur naturally in foods or may be added in food processing or by consumers before consumption. Higher intake of added sugars is associated with higher energy intake and lower diet quality, which can increase the risk for obesity, prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. On average, adults in the United States consume 14.6% of energy from added sugars. Polyols (also referred to as sugar alcohols) add sweetness with less energy and may reduce risk for dental caries. Foods containing polyols and/or no added sugars can, within food labeling guidelines, be labeled as sugar-free. NNS are those that sweeten with minimal or no carbohydrate or energy. They are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration as food additives or generally recognized as safe. The Food and Drug Administration approval process includes determination of probable intake, cumulative effect from all uses, and toxicology studies in animals. Seven NNS are approved for use in the United States: acesulfame K, aspartame, luo han guo fruit extract, neotame, saccharin, stevia, and sucralose. They have different functional properties that may affect perceived taste or use in different food applications. All NNS approved for use in the United States are determined to be safe.

Copyright © 2012 Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.