GI, GL och inflammationer

[King Grub]

BACKGROUND:

To our knowledge, there is no study available that summarizes earlier findings on the effect of dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) on inflammatory biomarkers.

OBJECTIVE:
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to systematically review the available clinical trials that examined the effects of low-GI (LGI) and low-GL (LGL) diets on several inflammatory biomarkers in adults.

DESIGN:

We searched for relevant articles published up to June 2017 through PubMed, Medline, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Google Scholar with the use of relevant keywords. Clinical trials that examined the effect of dietary GI and GL on inflammation in adults were included.

RESULTS:

Overall, 28 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 2961 participants (59% women, 41% men) were included in this meta-analysis. By combining findings from 14 studies on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) concentrations, we found no significant effect of LGI or LGL diets on serum hs-CRP concentrations compared with the control diet [weighted mean difference (WMD) for dietary GI: -0.05 mg/L (95% CI: -0.21, 0.10 mg/L); and WMD for dietary GL: 0.08 mg/L (95% CI: -0.26, 0.42 mg/L), respectively]. After combining effect sizes from 5 studies, we did not find significant changes in serum tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) concentrations comparing control diets with LGI (WMD: -0.18 mg/L; 95% CI: -0.43, 0.06 mg/L) or LGL (WMD: -0.20 mg/L; 95% CI: -0.33, 0.07 mg/L) diets. Significant changes were also not seen in leptin and interleukin 6 (IL-6) concentrations after the consumption of LGI or LGL diets.

CONCLUSIONS:

We did not find any significant effect of dietary GI or GL on serum concentrations of inflammatory cytokines, including hs-CRP, leptin, IL-6, and TNF-α in adults. Additional RCTs-in particular, feeding trials-are required to shed light on this issue.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2018 Apr 1;107(4):593-606. The effect of dietary glycemic index and glycemic load on inflammatory biomarkers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

[Luca Brasi]

Kan man lita på detta?

[King Grub]

Metaanalyser är dom vetenskapliga artiklarna som har högst evidensvärde. Enstaka studier kan vara irrelevanta i det stora hela, men analyser av och sammanställningar av resultaten från alla studier på området väger tyngre.

[Aryt]

Ursprungligen postat av Luca Brasi

Kan man lita på detta?

Ursprungligen postat av King Grub

Metaanalyser är dom vetenskapliga artiklarna som har högst evidensvärde. Enstaka studier kan vara irrelevanta i det stora hela, men analyser av och sammanställningar av resultaten från alla studier på området väger tyngre.

I regel är en välgjord metaanalys väldigt värdefull, men det finns många fallgropar. Den blir inte bättre än datan du pluggar in, och om den som genomför metaanalysen har en agenda är det lätt att snedvrida den.

EPA's study selection is disturbing. First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta-analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines. See ETS Risk Assessment at 4-29 ("These data should also be examined in the interest of weighing all the available evidence, as recommended by EPA's carcinogen risk assessment guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1986a) (emphasis added)). Third, EPA's selective use of data conflicts with the Radon Research Act. The Act states EPA's program shall "gather data and information on all aspects of indoor air quality" (Radon Research Act § 403(a)(1)) (emphasis added).[29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-a...tical_approach

I discuss how the use of many small randomized trials with clinically non-relevant outcomes, improper interpretation of statistical significance, manipulated study design, biased selection of study populations, short follow-up, and selective and distorted reporting of results has built and nourished a seemingly evidence-based myth on antidepressant effectiveness and how higher evidence standards, with very large long-term trials and careful prospective meta-analyses of individual-level data may reach closer to the truth and clinically useful evidence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18505564

[Luca Brasi]

Jag tyckte mest att det lät för bra för att vara sant.
Så fort man äter något man vill äta så måste man ju få 3000 sorters cancer,levercirros och stroke.

[Aryt]

Ursprungligen postat av Luca Brasi

Jag tyckte mest att det lät för bra för att vara sant.
Så fort man äter något man vill äta så måste man ju få 3000 sorters cancer,levercirros och stroke.

Sedan måste man ställa sig frågan om inflammationsmarkörerna som användes är lämpliga för frågeställningen. CRP kan stiga till 500 gånger högre än normalt av blodförgiftning eller något 100 talet gånger högre av en större operation.