Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T19:46:47.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dietary glycaemic index, glycaemic load and insulin resistance in lean and overweight women with polycystic ovary syndrome and controls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2010

S. Barr ,
K. Hart ,
S. Reeves ,
K. Sharp  and
Y. Jeanes
S. Barr
Affiliation:
Health Sciences Research Centre, Roehampton University, London SW15 4JD, UK
K. Hart
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK
S. Reeves
Affiliation:
Health Sciences Research Centre, Roehampton University, London SW15 4JD, UK
K. Sharp
Affiliation:
Health Sciences Research Centre, Roehampton University, London SW15 4JD, UK
Y. Jeanes
Affiliation:
Health Sciences Research Centre, Roehampton University, London SW15 4JD, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Abstract
Information
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , Volume 69 , Issue OCE1: Over- and undernutrition: challenges and approaches. 29 June–2 July 2009 , 2010 , E126
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2009

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affects ⩽10% of women of reproductive age in the UK(Reference Franks1). Obesity and insulin resistance are common features of the syndrome with approximately 33% of UK women with PCOS (wPCOS) being obese(Reference Barr, Hart and Reeves2) and ⩽80% of wPCOS being insulin resistant(Reference Carmina and Lobo3). Low-glycaemic index (GI) diets have been shown to be effective at improving insulin sensitivity and are proposed as a useful strategy for the management of insulin resistance in wPCOS(Reference Marsh and Brand-Miller4). The present research aims to describe the habitual diet of lean and overweight wPCOS compared with matched controls.

Dietary intake, GI and glycaemic load (GL) using a 7 d food diary were compared in thirty-eight wPCOS and twenty-eight age- and weight-matched controls (overall mean age 30.2 (sd 6.1) years). Weight and height were measured and BMI calculated. Fasting and 2 h insulin and glucose following a 75 g glucose tolerance test were measured and insulin resistance (HOMA index) calculated.

CHO, carbohydrate. *Low <55, medium 55–69, high ≥70. †Low <10, medium 10.1–19.9, high ≥20.

There were no significant differences in dietary GI or GL between lean or overweight wPCOS or controls. Dietary GL was considered low for both lean wPCOS and controls, and medium for overweight wPCOS and controls. Percentage energy from carbohydrate intake was significantly lower (P<0.001) and percentage energy from fat significantly higher (P=0.002) for lean wPCOS than lean controls. The 2 h insulin levels were significantly higher for lean wPCOS than lean controls (P=0.013).

Proposed recommendations for health of a dietary GI of ⩽45(Reference Barclay, Petocz and McMillan-Price5) are not being met by wPCOS or controls, additionally wPCOS are not meeting dietary recommendations for fat or carbohydrate intake. The present study is the first in the UK to report the dietary GI, GL and habitual dietary intake of wPCOS compared with healthy controls and the results indicate both qualitative and quantitative differences. These results will help inform future studies by establishing the current dietary habits of wPCOS in the UK and providing essential evidence towards effective dietary management of this syndrome.

References

1. Franks, S (1995) New Engl J Med 333(13), 853–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Barr, S, Hart, K, Reeves, S et al. . (2007) Ann Nutr Metab 51, Suppl. 1, 345.Google Scholar
3. Carmina, E & Lobo, RA (2004) Fertil Steril 82, 661–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Marsh, K & Brand-Miller, J (2005) Br J Nutr 94, 154–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Barclay, AW, Petocz, P, McMillan-Price, J et al. . (2008) Am J Clin Nutr 87, 627–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar