Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Oct 12.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Feb;87(2):339–346. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/87.2.339

Low-carbohydrate-diet score and risk of type 2 diabetes in women2

Thomas L Halton 1, Simin Liu 1, JoAnn E Manson 1, Frank B Hu 1
PMCID: PMC2760285  NIHMSID: NIHMS133536  PMID: 18258623

Abstract

Background

Low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets remain popular; however, the long-term effects of these diets are not known.

Objective

The objective was to examine the association between low-carbohydrate-diet score and risk of type 2 diabetes

Design

We prospectively examined the association between low-carbohydrate-diet score (based on percentage of energy as carbohydrate, fat, and protein) and risk of diabetes among 85 059 women in the Nurses' Health Study.

Results

During 20 y of follow-up, we documented 4670 cases of type 2 diabetes. The multivariate relative risk (RR) of diabetes, after adjustment for body mass index and other covariates, in a comparison of the highest decile of low-carbohydrate-diet score with the lowest was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.04; P for trend = 0.26). The multivariate RR for the comparison of extreme deciles of low-carbohydrate-diet score based on total carbohydrate, animal protein, and animal fat was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.16; P for trend = 1.0), whereas the RR for a low-carbohydrate-diet score based on total carbohydrate, vegetable protein, and vegetable fat was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.94; P for trend = 0.001). A higher dietary glycemic load was strongly associated with an increased risk of diabetes in a comparison of extreme deciles (RR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.75,3.47; P for trend < 0.0001)). A higher carbohydrate consumption was also associated with an increased risk of diabetes in a comparison of extreme deciles (RR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.49; P for trend = 0.003).

Conclusion

These data suggest that diets lower in carbohydrate and higher in fat and protein do not increase the risk of type 2 diabetes in women. In fact, diets rich in vegetable sources of fat and protein may modestly reduce the risk of diabetes.

Keywords: Low-carbohydrate diet, Nurses' Health Study, type 2 diabetes, women, glycemic load, glycemic index

Introduction

Obesity in the United States has become a major public health concern. At any given time, ≈45% of women and ≈30% of men are attempting to lose weight (1). A low-fat, high-carbohydrate, hypocaloric diet has been advocated by a variety of research and medical societies for weight management (2–5). Despite these guidelines, low-carbohydrate diets remain a popular option for those attempting to lose weight. A number of best-selling books promote this strategy for weight loss (6–10).

The long-term effects of low-carbohydrate diets are yet to be determined. Low-carbohydrate diets result in an increase in total and saturated fat intakes and a decrease in consumption of whole grains, cereal fiber, fruit, and vegetables. These changes in diet have the potential to increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. The American Diabetes Association advocates a low-fat diet to prevent type 2 diabetes (11).

We created the low-carbohydrate-diet score by dividing women from the Nurses' Health Study into deciles of fat, protein, and carbohydrate consumption as a percentage of energy consumed. The highest score, 30, represents the highest intake of fat and protein and the lowest intake of carbohydrate, whereas the lowest score, 0, represents the lowest intake of fat and protein and the highest intake of carbohydrate. The low-carbohydrate-diet score, therefore, represents how closely a participant followed a low-carbohydrate diet. In a previous investigation, we found that this score was not associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease in women from the Nurses' Health Study (12). In the present study, we examined prospectively the association between a low-carbohydrate-diet score and the risk of type 2 diabetes in participants from the Nurses' Health Study.

Subjects and Methods

Study population

The Nurses' Health Study was initiated in 1976 when 121 700 female registered nurses aged 30–55 y completed a mailed questionnaire. Ninety-eight percent of these women were white, which reflected the ethnic composition of US registered nurses at the time. Since 1976, information on disease status as well as lifestyle factors has been collected every 2 y. Diet was assessed by means of a semiquantitative food-frequency questionnaire (SFFQ) in 1980, 1984, 1986, 1990, 1994, and 1998.

For this investigation, we excluded all women at baseline who left ≥ 10 food items blank or had implausibly high (>3500 kcal) or low (<500 kcal) energy intakes on the SFFQ. We further excluded women with a history of diabetes, cancer (not including nonmelanoma skin cancer), or cardiovascular disease at baseline because these diseases can cause alterations in diet. After these exclusions, 85 059 women remained in this investigation. Participants were followed for 20 y (1980–2000). The study was conducted according to the ethical guidelines of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston. The completion of the self-administered questionnaire was considered to imply informed consent.

Dietary assessment

At baseline, the SFFQ contained 61 food items and was revised in subsequent cycles to include about twice that number (13, 14). Study participants reported average frequency of consumption of foods with a commonly used portion size throughout the previous year. The validity and reproducibility of the questionnaire were documented elsewhere (14).

To calculate intakes of specific foods, a commonly used portion size for each food was specified, and the participants were asked how often, on average, during the previous year they had consumed that amount. The possible responses ranged from never or less than once per month to ≥6 times/d.

Nutrient values for carbohydrate, total fat, protein, trans fat, saturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, and cereal fiber were computed by multiplying the frequency of consumption of each food by the nutrient content of the portion and then adding these products across each food item. When corrected for week-to-week variations in diet records that were used to assess validity, the correlation between the expanded food-frequency questionnaire and two 1-wk diet records was 0.64 for carbohydrate, 0.57 for fat, and 0.50 for protein (15). All food composition values were obtained from the Harvard University food-composition database, which was derived from US Department of Agriculture sources (16). This database was further supplemented with manufacturer's information.

The method used to assess dietary glycemic load in the Nurses' Health Study was documented elsewhere. Briefly, we calculated the glycemic load by multiplying the carbohydrate content of each food by its glycemic index and then multiplied this value by the frequency of consumption and summed these values for all foods. Dietary glycemic load, therefore, represents both the quality and quantity of carbohydrate consumed. Each unit of glycemic load represents the equivalent of 1 g carbohydrate from white bread or pure glucose.

Measurement of nondietary factors

In 1982 and 1988 women provided information regarding family history of diabetes in first-degree relatives. Participants also provided information on the use of postmenopausal hormones, smoking status, and body weight every 2 y throughout the follow-up. The correlation coefficient between self-reported body weight and measured weight was 0.96 (17).

Participants reported specific physical activities in hours per week in 1980, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 1998. From each questionnaire we calculated the average number of hours per week spent in moderate or vigorous activity, including brisk walking, vigorous sports, jogging, cycling, heavy gardening, and housework (18).

Outcome ascertainment

The outcome of this study is incident type 2 diabetes mellitus. If a participant reported a diagnosis of diabetes on any of the 2-y follow-up questionnaires, a supplementary questionnaire was mailed regarding symptoms, diagnostic testing, and treatment. A diagnosis of type 2 diabetes was defined by at least one of the following criteria reported on the supplemental questionnaire: 1) ≥1 classic symptom (excessive thirst, polyuria, hunger, or weight loss) plus a fasting plasma glucose concentration of ≥ 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L) or a random plasma glucose concentration of ≥200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L); 2) ≥2 elevated plasma glucose concentrations on different occasions [fasting ≥ 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L), random ≥ 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L)] or random ≥ 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) after ≥2 h of oral-glucose-tolerance testing in the absence of symptoms; or 3) treatment with hypoglycemic medications (insulin or oral hypoglycemic agents). These criteria correspond to those of the National Diabetes Data Group (19). In 1997, the diagnostic criteria for type 2 diabetes was changed so that lower fasting glucose concentrations (≥ 126 mg/dL, or 7 mmol/L) would now be considered diagnostic. Therefore, we used the American Diabetes Association criteria for diagnosis of type 2 diabetes after 1998 (20). We excluded women classified as having only gestational diabetes as well as those with type 1 diabetes. In the Nurses' Health Study, the supplemental questionnaire was highly reliable regarding confirmation of diabetes diagnosis. In a random sample of 84 women classified as having type 2 diabetes according to the supplemental questionnaire, medical records were available for 62 of these women. An endocrinologist who was blinded to the supplemental questionnaire data reviewed the records and confirmed the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in 61 of the 62 women (98%) (21).

Statistical analysis

Each participant contributed follow-up time from the date of returning the 1980 baseline questionnaire to the date of the first endpoint, death, or 1 June 2000. Women were excluded from follow-up once they were diagnosed with diabetes. We divided the participants into deciles of fat, protein, and carbohydrate intakes (12). For fat and protein, women in the highest decile received a score of 10 for that macronutrient and women in the ninth decile received a 9 and so on down to the lowest decile, which received a score of 0. For carbohydrate, the scoring was the same but the order was reversed. Those with the lowest carbohydrate intake received a score of 10, and those with the highest carbohydrate intake received a score of 0.

The macronutrient scores were summed to create the low-carbohydrate-diet score, which ranged from 0 (lowest fat and protein intakes and highest carbohydrate intake) to 30 (highest protein and fat intakes and lowest carbohydrate intake). Therefore, the higher the score, the more closely the participant followed a low-carbohydrate diet. We divided women into 10 categories (deciles) according to low-carbohydrate-diet score. To represent long-term intake and reduce measurement error, the cumulative average low-carbohydrate-diet score was calculated (22). For example, the low-carbohydrate-diet score from the 1980 questionnaire was related to diabetes incidence between 1980 and 1984 and the low-carbohydrate-diet score from the average of the 1980 and 1984 questionnaires was related to diabetes incidence between 1984 and 1986. Incidence rates for type 2 diabetes were calculated by dividing cases by the person-years of follow-up for each decile of low-carbohydrate-diet score. The relative risk (RR) of type 2 diabetes was calculated by dividing the rate of occurrence of type 2 diabetes in each decile by the rate in the first (lowest) decile. We used Cox proportional hazards models (23) to adjust for potentially confounding variables, including body mass index, family history of diabetes, smoking, alcohol use, postmenopausal hormone use, and physical activity.

We also examined the association between each macronutrient and risk of type 2 diabetes in multivariate nutrient density models. When modeling carbohydrate, the percentage of energy from carbohydrate, the percentage of energy from protein, and total energy were simultaneously included in the model to examine the effect of substituting carbohydrate for fat. When modeling protein, the percentage of energy from protein, the percent of energy from fat and total energy were simultaneously included in the model to examine the effect of substituting protein for carbohydrate. When modeling fat, the percentage of energy from fat, the percentage of energy from protein, and total energy were simultaneously included in the model to examine the effect of substituting fat for carbohydrate. We also examined the association between dietary glycemic load and the risk of type 2 diabetes.

All P values were 2 sided. Tests for trend were examined by using the median value for each category of low-carbohydrate-diet score, which was analyzed as a continuous variable in the regression models. All statistical analyses were performed with SAS version 8.2 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results

At baseline in 1980, the mean (±SE) low-carbohydrate-diet score was 18.2 ± 7.2 and ranged from 0 to 30 (10th to 90th percentile: 8–27). The cumulative average low-carbohydrate-diet score ranged from 5 in the first decile to 26 in the 10th decile. Women who had a higher low-carbohydrate dietary score tended to have a lower dietary glycemic load; lower cereal fiber, refined grain, and fruit and vegetable intakes; and higher red meat, animal fat, and saturated fat intakes. Family history of type 2 diabetes, body mass index, postmenopausal hormone use, physical activity, trans fat, and total calories were not significantly different across deciles (Table 1).

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics according to low-carbohydrate-diet score in participants of the Nurses' Health Study1

Total low-carbohydrate score2 Animal low-carbohydrate score3 Vegetable low-carbohydrate score4
Variable Dec 1 Dec 5 Dec 10 Dec 1 Dec 5 Dec 10 Dec 1 Dec 5 Dec 10
Median score 5 14.0 26.0 4.3 13.3 27 8 14.3 21.8
Age 45.9 ± 0.15 45.8 ± 0.1 46.2 ±0.1 46.0 ±0.1 45.9 ± 0.1 46.2 ± 0.04 45.9 ±0.1 46.1 ± 0.1 46.2 ± 0.1
BMI (kg/m2) 24.0 ±0.1 24.0 ± 0.1 24.7 ± 0.03 23.9 ± 0.1 24.0 ± 0.1 24.6 ± 0.03 24.5 ± 0.03 24.3 ±0.1 23.9 ± 0.1
Family history of type 2 diabetes (%) 18 17 19 17 18 19 19 18 18
Postmenopausal hormone use (%) 8 7 9 7 8 9 9 8 8
Physical activity (h/wk) 3.9 ± 0.03 4.0 ± 0.1 3.9 ± 0.02 3.8 ± 0.04 3.9 ± 0.04 3.9 ± 0.02 3.9 ± 0.02 3.9 ± 0.04 4.0 ± 0.04
Current smokers (%) 29 27 30 27 28 31 28 30 29
Alcohol consumption (g/d) 4.9 ±0.1 7.3 ± 0.2 5.1 ± 0.1 4.0 ±0.1 6.8 ± 0.2 6.2 ± 0.1 4.6 ±0.1 6.6 ±0.1 5.9 ± 0.1
Energy (kcal) 1533 ± 5.7 1559 ± 9.1 1559 ± 3.3 1550 ± 6.8 1555 ± 7.5 1551 ± 3.0 1565 ± 3.7 1552 ± 6.6 1591 ± 6.3
Glycemic index6 54.0 ±0.1 52.1 ± 0.1 49.8 ± 0.03 54.1 ± 0.1 52.4 ± 0.1 49.8 ± 0.03 51.8 ± 0.04 51.6 ± 0.1 50.8 ± 0.1
Glycemic load6 124 ± 0.6 94 ± 0.7 61 ± 0.2 126 ± 0.7 97 ± 0.5 62.4 ± 0.2 102.9 ± 0.3 80.1 ± 0.5 77.2 ± 0.4
Cereal fiber (g/d) 3.0 ± 0.03 2.7 ± 0.03 1.8 ± 0.01 3.3 ± 0.03 2.8 ± 0.03 1.8 ± 0.01 2.3 ± 0.01 2.5 ± 0.02 2.9 ± 0.02
Fruit and vegetable (servings/d) 4.9 ± 0.03 4.2 ± 0.04 3.5 ± 0.01 4.9 ± 0.04 4.2 ± 0.03 3.6 ± 0.01 4.5 ± 0.02 3.9 ± 0.03 3.8 ± 0.02
Coffee (cups/d) 2.0 ± 0.02 2.1 ± 0.03 2.3 ± 0.01 2.0 ± 0.02 2.2 ± 0.03 2.3 ± 0.01 2.0 ± 0.01 2.3 ± 0.03 2.4 ± 0.02
Magnesium intake (mg/d) 286 ±0.8 296 ±1.3 287 ± 0.4 294 ±1.0 298 ± 1.1 284 ± 0.4 281 ± 0.5 297 ±1.0 329 ± 0.9
Multivitamin use (%) 34 34 34 33 34 34 35 34 36
Red meat (servings/d)7 0.8 ± 0.01 1.2 ± 0.01 1.8 ± 0.01 0.7 ± 0.01 1.1 ± 0.01 1.8 ± 0.01 1.2 ± 0.01 1.4 ± 0.01 1.2 ± 0.01
Whole grains (servings/d) 1.2 ± 0.01 1.1 ± 0.02 1.0 ± 0.01 1.3 ± 0.02 1.2 ± 0.02 1.0 ± 0.01 1.0 ± 0.01 1.2 ± 0.02 1.4 ± 0.02
Refined grains (servings/d) 2.3 ± 0.02 2.3 ± 0.03 1.9 ± 0.01 2.4 ± 0.03 2.3 ± 0.03 1.9 ± 0.01 2.0 ± 0.01 2.2 ± 0.02 2.2 ± 0.02
Nuts (servings/d) 0.1 ± 0.001 0.2 ± 0.001 0.2 ± 0.001 0.2 ± 0.001 0.1 ± 0.001 0.1 ± 0.001 0.1 ± 0.0004 0.1 ± 0.001 0.4 ± 0.002
Poultry (servings/d) 0.2 ± 0.001 0.3 ± 0.001 0.3 ± 0.001 0.2 ± 0.001 0.3 ± 0.001 0.3 ± 0.001 0.3 ± 0.001 0.3 ± 0.001 0.2 ± 0.001
Fish (servings/d) 0.1 ± 0.001 0.2 ± 0.001 0.2 ± 0.001 0.1 ± 0.001 0.2 ± 0.001 0.2 ± 0.001 0.2 ± 0.001 0.2 ± 0.001 0.2 ± 0.001
Protein (% of energy) 14.7 ± 0.03 17.8 ± 0.1 21.9 ± 0.02 14.2 ± 0.03 17.3 ± 0.04 21.9 ± 0.02 18.4 ± 0.03 19.2 ± 0.1 18.4 ± 0.04
Carbohydrate (% of energy) 54.7 ±0.1 43.4 ± 0.1 29.6 ± 0.04 55.3 ±0.1 44.8 ±0.1 30.2 ± 0.04 46.5 ±0.1 37.7 ± 0.1 36.5 ±0.1
Total fat (% of energy) 28.3 ±0.1 35.2 ± 0.1 46.1 ± 0.03 28.9 ±0.1 34.6 ±0.1 44.9 ± 0.04 32.9 ±0.1 39.9 ± 0.1 42.4 ±0.1
Animal fat (% of energy) 18.4 ± 0.1 24.8 ± 0.1 37.5 ± 0.04 15.9 ± 0.1 23.3 ± 0.1 37.5 ± 0.04 26.7 ±0.1 29.6 ±0.1 23.8 ± 0.1
Vegetable fat (% energy) 9.9 ± 0.1 10.4 ± 0.1 8.6 ± 0.03 12.7 ± 0.1 11.3 ± 0.1 7.5 ± 0.02 6.3 ± 0.02 10.3 ± 0.04 18.6 ± 0.1
Polyunsaturated fat (% of energy) 4.7 ± 0.02 5.2 ± 0.03 5.4 ± 0.01 5.2 ± 0.02 5.4 ± 0.03 5.1 ± 0.01 4.1 ± 0.01 5.5 ± 0.02 7.4 ± 0.02
trans fat (% of energy) 2.0 ± 0.003 2.3 ± 0.003 2.4 ± 0.002 2.1 ± 0.003 2.2 ± 0.003 2.3 ± 0.002 1.8 ± 0.002 2.2 ± 0.002 2.5 ± 0.003
Saturated fat (% of energy) 11.1 ± 0.03 14.1 ± 0.04 18.7 ± 0.02 10.6 ± 0.03 13.6 ± 0.04 18.5 ± 0.02 14.0 ± 0.02 15.8 ± 0.04 15.0 ± 0.03
Open in a new tab
1

Tests for trend (based on ordinal variables containing median values for each quintile) were all significant (P < 0.05), except for multivitamin use (for total low-score and animal low-carbohydrate score), physical activity (for total low-carbohydrate score, animal low-carbohydrate score, and vegetable low carbohydrate score), age (for vegetable low-carbohydrate score), family history of type 2 diabetes (for vegetable low-carbohydrate score), and saturated fat (for vegetable low-carbohydrate score).

2

Sum of carbohydrate, total fat, and total protein scores.

3

Sum of carbohydrate, animal fat, and animal protein scores.

4

Sum of carbohydrate, vegetable fat, and vegetable protein scores.

5

x̄ ± SEM (all such values).

6

Glucose was used as the reference for glycemic index and glycemic load calculations.

7

Composite score of beef, pork, and lamb as a main dish or mixed dish; hamburgers; hot dogs; bacon; and processed meats.

During 20 y of follow-up (1 606 716 person years), we documented 4670 cases of type 2 diabetes. The age-adjusted RR of type 2 diabetes was 1.40 (95% CI: 1.21, 1.61) in a comparison of women in the 10th decile of low-carbohydrate-diet score with women in the first decile (P for trend < 0.0001) (Table 2). Control for smoking, postmenopausal hormone use, physical activity, alcohol use, and family history of type 2 diabetes in a first-degree relative did not change the RR. Further control for BMI attenuated the RR to 0.90 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.04; P for trend = 0.26).

Table 2.

Relative risk (RR) of type 2 diabetes in women according to low-carbohydrate-diet score

Low-carbohydrate-diet score Decile
1		 Decile
3		 Decile
5		 Decile
7		 Decile
10		 P for trend
By total carbohydrate, total protein, and total fat
 No. of cases 413 453 446 514 381 —
 Person-years 163, 768 158, 745 141, 252 173, 757 163, 403 —
 Median score 5 10.5 14 17 26 —
 Range 0–7 9.7–11.3 13.2–14.6 16.3–18 23.5–30 —
 Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.0 1.06 (0.93, 1.22) 1.17 (1.02, 1.33) 1.23 (1.08, 1.40) 1.40 (1.21, 1.61) < .0001
 Multivariate1 1.0 1.12 (0.98, 1.28) 1.24 (1.09, 1.42) 1.31 (1.15, 1.49) 1.40 (1.21, 1.61) < .0001
 Multivariate plus BMI2 1.0 0.98 (0.85, 1.12) 0.96 (0.84, 1.10) 0.92 (0.81, 1.05) 0.90 (0.78, 1.04) 0.26
By total carbohydrate, animal protein, and animal fat
 No. of cases 376 481 494 477 349 —
 Person-years 157, 985 162, 955 165, 364 151, 145 162, 697 —
 Median score 4.3 10 13.3 17 27 —
 Range 0–6.3 9–10.8 12.5–14.2 16.2–18 24.8–30 —
 Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.0 1.21 (1.06, 1.38) 1.30 (1.13, 1.48) 1.47 (1.29, 1.69) 1.53 (1.31, 1.78) < .0001
 Multivariate1 1.0 1.27 (1.11, 1.45) 1.39 (1.21, 1.59) 1.58 (1.38, 1.81) 1.61 (1.37, 1.88) < .0001
 Multivariate plus BMI2 1.0 1.05 (0.92, 1.21) 1.02 (0.89, 1.17) 1.03 (0.90, 1.18) 0.99 (0.85, 1.16) 1.0
By total carbohydrate, vegetable protein, and vegetable fat
 No. of cases 478 442 470 605 395 —
 Person-years 161, 658 152, 041 150, 484 204, 564 147, 649 —
 Median score 8 12 14.3 16.5 21.8 —
 Range 0–9.6 11.2–12.6 14–14.8 16–17 20.2–30 —
 Age-adjusted RR (95% CI) 1.0 0.79 (0.70, 0.90) 0.81 (0.71, 0.92) 0.78 (0.69, 0.88) 0.74 (0.64, 0.84) < .0001
 Multivariate1 1.0 0.84 (0.74, 0.96) 0.88 (0.77, 1.0) 0.86 (0.76, 0.97) 0.83 (0.73, 0.95) 0.002
 Multivariate plus BMI2 1.0 0.82 (0.72, 0.94) 0.85 (0.74, 0.97) 0.83 (0.73, 0.94) 0.82 (0.71, 0.94) 0.001
Open in a new tab
1

RR was adjusted for age in 5-y categories, smoking (never, past, or current smoking of 1-14,15-24, or ≥25 cigarettes/d), postmenopausal hormone use (never, current use, past use), physical activity (<1, 1–2, 2–4, 4–7, or >7 h/wk), alcohol intake (0, 1–4.9, 5–14.9, or ≥15 g/d), and family history of type 2 diabetes in a first-degree relative.

2

Adjusted for the variables in footnote 1 plus BMI (<22, 22–22.9, 23–23.9, 24–24.9, 25–27.9, 28–29.9, 30–31.9, 32–33.9, 34–39.9, or ≥40 kg/m2).

In a stratified analysis, there was no association between low-carbohydrate-diet score and risk of type 2 diabetes in either obese or nonobese women (data not shown). There was no evidence of effect modification of the relation between low-carbohydrate-diet score and type 2 diabetes when the data were stratified by smoking status, family history of type 2 diabetes, or physical activity (data not shown).

We created a low-carbohydrate-diet score using percentage of energy as carbohydrate, percentage of energy as animal protein, and percentage of energy as animal fat (12). The multivariate RR of type 2 diabetes was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.16) in a comparison of the 10th with the 1st decile for this score (P for trend = 1.0) (Table 2). We also created a low-carbohydrate-diet score using percentage of energy as carbohydrate, percentage of energy as vegetable protein, and percentage of energy as vegetable fat (12). The multivariate RR of type 2 diabetes was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.94) in a comparison of the 10th with the 1st decile for this score (P for trend = 0.001) (Table 2).

We examined the association between each macronutrient and type 2 diabetes separately (Table 3). Comparison of the 10th with the 1st decile showed a significant positive association between carbohydrate consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes (multivariate RR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.49; P for trend = 0.003). A significant positive association was also observed between dietary glycemic load and risk of type 2 diabetes in a comparison of the 10th with the 1st decile (multivariate RR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.75, 3.47; P for trend < 0.0001). In contrast, a significant inverse association was observed between vegetable fat consumption and type 2 diabetes in a comparison of the 10th with the 1st decile (multivariate RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.62, 0.89; P for trend < 0.0001). Total fat, animal fat, total protein, vegetable protein, and animal protein intakes were not associated with risk of type 2 diabetes.

Table 3.

Relative risk of type 2 diabetes in women according to macronutrient consumption1

Decile 1 Decile 3 Decile 5 Decile 7 Decile 10 P for trend
Carbohydrate
 Age adjusted 1.0 1.13 (0.98, 1.31) 1.22 (1.05, 1.40) 1.16 (1.0, 1.34) 1.04 (0.90, 1.20) 0.80
 Multivariate2 1.0 1.06 (0.91, 1.23) 1.14 (0.98, 1.33) 1.12 (0.96, 1.32) 1.26 (1.07, 1.49) 0.003
Glycemic load
 Age adjusted 1.0 1.04 (.88, 1.22) 1.16 (.99, 1.35) 1.26 (1.08, 1.47) 1.37 (1.18, 1.60) <.0001
 Multivariate3 1.0 1.23 (1.0, 1.49) 1.56 (1.24, 1.97) 1.88 (1.45, 2.45) 2.47 (1.75, 3.47) <.0001
Total fat
 Age adjusted 1.0 1.20 (1.06, 1.37) 1.30 (1.15, 1.49) 1.36 (1.19, 1.55) 1.45 (1.26, 1.67) <.0001
 Multivariate4 1.0 1.04 (0.91, 1.18) 1.01 (0.89, 1.15) 0.98 (0.86, 1.12) 0.91 (0.79, 1.06) 0.44
Animal fat
 Age adjusted 1.0 1.44 (1.26, 1.65) 1.68 (1.47, 1.92) 1.65 (1.44, 1.90) 1.79 (1.52, 2.10) <.0001
 Multivariate5 1.0 1.09 (0.95, 1.25) 1.11 (0.96, 1.27) 1.0 (0.86, 1.16) 0.96 (0.80, 1.16) 0.98
Vegetable fat
 Age adjusted 1.0 1.02 (0.88, 1.17) 1.03 (0.89, 1.19) 0.90 (0.78, 1.05) 1.01 (0.87, 1.18) 0.74
 Multivariate6 1.0 0.89 (0.77, 1.03) 0.86 (0.74, 1.0) 0.73 (0.62, 0.86) 0.74 (0.62, 0.89) <.0001
Total protein
 Age adjusted 1.0 1.13 (0.98, 1.31) 1.24 (1.08, 1.43) 1.43 (1.25, 1.64) 1.69 (1.48, 1.94) <.0001
 Multivariate7 1.0 1.16 (1.0, 1.34) 1.16 (1.0, 1.34) 1.20 (1.04, 1.38) 1.03 (0.89, 1.19) 0.72
Animal protein
 Age adjusted 1.0 1.15 (1.0, 1.33) 1.30 (1.13, 1.50) 1.51 (1.32, 1.74) 1.74 (1.51, 2.01) <.0001
 Multivariate8 1.0 1.10 (0.95, 1.27) 1.12 (0.97, 1.30) 1.16 (1.0, 1.33) 1.01 (0.87, 1.17) 0.55
Vegetable protein
 Age adjusted 1.0 1.03 (0.90, 1.19) 1.04 (0.91, 1.21) 1.04 (0.90, 1.20) 0.90 (0.77, 1.04) 0.001
 Multivariate9 1.0 0.96 (0.83, 1.12) 0.98 (0.84, 1.15) 1.0 (0.85, 1.18) 0.97 (0.81, 1.17) 0.36
Open in a new tab
1

Nondietary factors: relative risk was adjusted for age in 5-y categories, BMI (<22, 22–22.9, 23–23.9, 24–24.9, 25–27.9, 28–29.9, 30–31.9, 32–33.9, 34–39.9, or ≥40 kg/m2), smoking (never, past, or current smoking of 1–14,15–24, or ≥25 cigarettes/d), postmenopausal hormone use (never, current use, or past use), physical activity (<1,1–2,2–4,4–7, or >7 h/wk), alcohol intake (0,1–4.9,5–14.9, or ≥15 g/d), and family history of type 2 diabetes in a first-degree relative.

2

Adjusted for nondietary factors plus protein, cereal fiber, and total calories.

3

Adjusted for nondietary factors plus protein, cereal fiber, saturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, trans fat, and total calories (glycemic load was assessed from 1984 to 2000).

4

Adjusted for nondietary factors plus protein and total calories.

5

Adjusted for nondietary factors plus protein, vegetable fat, trans fat, and total calories.

6

Adjusted for nondietary factors plus protein, animal fat, trans fat, and total calories.

7

Adjusted for nondietary factors plus cereal fiber, saturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, monounsaturated fat, trans fat, and total calories.

8

Adjusted for nondietary factors plus cereal fiber, saturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, monounsaturated fat, trans fat, vegetable protein, and total calories.

9

Adjusted for nondietary factors plus cereal fiber, saturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, monounsaturated fat, trans fat, animal protein, and total calories.

Discussion

In this large prospective cohort of women, we found that after adjustment for confounding variables, especially BMI, a higher low-carbohydrate-diet score was not associated with risk of type 2 diabetes. This dietary score was associated with a modest decreased risk of type 2 diabetes when vegetable sources rather than animal sources of fat and protein were chosen.

Although little research has been conducted on the association between low-carbohydrate-diet score and risk of type 2 diabetes, several investigations have examined the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on risk factors for type 2 diabetes for 6 mo or longer (24–27). After 6 mo, Samaha et al (24) found that insulin sensitivity improved more in subjects who consumed a low-carbohydrate diet than in those who consumed a low-fat diet. Among diabetic subjects, the mean fasting glucose concentration decreased more in the low-carbohydrate-diet group. In a 1-y follow-up study, Stern et al (25) found that, in diabetic subjects, hemoglobin A1c concentrations improved more in persons who consumed a low-carbohydrate diet than in those who consumed a low-fat diet. Foster et al (26), in a 1-y trial, compared a low-carbohydrate diet with a conventional low-fat diet and found no differences in insulin sensitivity between the 2 groups. Finally, Brehm et al (27) compared a low-carbohydrate diet with a low-fat diet for 6 mo and reported no differences in fasting glucose and fasting insulin between the 2 groups. These studies are difficult to interpret because of the various degrees of weight loss between the diet groups.

In shorter investigations, Boden et al (28) found a significantly lower hemoglobin A1c concentration, fasting plasma glucose concentration, mean 24-h insulin concentration, and improved insulin sensitivity in obese persons with type 2 diabetes after 2 wk of a low-carbohydrate diet. McAuley et al (29) observed no difference in fasting insulin or fasting glucose concentrations after 16 wk of either a low-fat or a low-carbohydrate diet. In a 5-wk randomized crossover trial, Gannon and Nuttall (30) found that, compared with a low-fat diet, a low-carbohydrate diet significantly reduced fasting glucose and glycated hemoglobin concentrations. In contrast, Swinburn et al (31) reported a significant improvement in oral glucose tolerance and a significant reduction in fasting plasma glucose in subjects who consumed a high-carbohydrate diet relative to those who consumed a low-carbohydrate diet. Once again, these studies are difficult to interpret because of various degrees of weight loss between the diet groups and because oral-glucose-tolerance tests are greatly affected by carbohydrate consumption over the few days before the test is conducted (32).

When compared with low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets, low-carbohydrate diets tend to have a relatively higher percentage of fat and protein and a lower percentage of carbohydrate. When evaluating the association between low-carbohydrate-diet score and risk of type 2 diabetes, each of the macronutrients must be taken into consideration.

Distinct types of fats have various effects on risk factors for type 2 diabetes. Substituting unsaturated fats for saturated fats increases insulin sensitivity in diabetic (33), overweight (34), and healthy (35) subjects. In epidemiologic studies, polyunsaturated fat has been shown to be associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes (36, 37). Generally, no association has been found between saturated fat (37–39) or monounsaturated fat (38–40) and risk of type 2 diabetes. Results from cohort studies on the association between trans fat and risk of type 2 diabetes have not been consistent (36, 37, 41). Dietary interventions in humans have shown no consistent adverse effects of high-fat diets on insulin sensitivity (31, 42–45) and in epidemiologic studies, total fat has not been shown to increase risk of type 2 diabetes (36, 37, 41). Therefore, the increase in total fat common in low-carbohydrate diets would not be expected to increase the risk of type 2 diabetes.

In low-carbohydrate diets, dietary protein is substituted for some of the carbohydrate. Dietary protein has not been shown to raise peripheral glucose concentrations after ingestion in healthy subjects or in persons with type 2 diabetes (46–51). However, protein does tend to stimulate insulin secretion in healthy persons (52, 53) and even more so in persons with type 2 diabetes (54). In metabolic studies, Gannon et al (55) found that 24-h integrated glucose area response and glycated hemoglobin decreased significantly more after 5 wk of a high-protein diet than after 5 wk of a low-fat control diet. In a similar investigation, Sargrad et al (56) found no beneficial effects of a high-protein diet relative to a low-fat diet. Epidemiologic studies of protein intake and risk of type 2 diabetes are limited. In a 6-y follow-up of subjects in the Nurses' Health Study, Colditz et al (38) found no association between protein consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes. In these updated analyses, we found no association between total protein, animal protein, or vegetable protein and risk of type 2 diabetes.

The lack of an association between a low-carbohydrate-diet score and risk of type 2 diabetes when adjusted for confounders may also be explained by the amount and quality of carbohydrate present in the diet. High-carbohydrate diets generally result in high postprandial glucose and insulin responses. The total percentage of energy from carbohydrate has generally not been found to increase the risk of type 2 diabetes (39, 57–59). However, in the present analysis, we found a modest but positive association between carbohydrate consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes.

A carbohydrate-restricted diet tends to have a lower glycemic index and lower glycemic load than does a high-carbohydrate diet. The glycemic index of a carbohydrate is a measure of how much that food raises blood glucose compared with a standard carbohydrate (usually glucose or white bread) (60). The glycemic load takes into account the amount of carbohydrate in addition to its glycemic index (61). Compared with higher glycemic diets, low glycemic diets have been shown in epidemiologic studies to decrease glucose and insulin responses (62–64) and glycated hemoglobin (65) and to increase insulin sensitivity (64, 66). In addition, several prospective studies have shown an association between dietary glycemic index or glycemic load and risk of type 2 diabetes (39, 58, 59), whereas 2 prospective studies have not reported this association (57, 67). In the present investigation we found a statistically significant positive association for both dietary glycemic load and total carbohydrate and risk of type 2 diabetes. The positive association between dietary glycemic load and type 2 diabetes was much stronger than that for total carbohydrate because glycemic load captures both the quality and quantity of carbohydrate.

Adequate power for this investigation was provided by the large sample size and 20-y follow-up with updated dietary data. The prospective design and high follow-up rate served to minimize bias. Because diet was assessed with a self-reported questionnaire, some degree of misclassification of intakes of fat, protein, and carbohydrate will have occurred. Measurement error in assessing long-term diet was reduced in this analysis by using the average of all available measurements of diet up to the start of each 2-y follow-up interval.

In this investigation we measured and adjusted for a variety of potential confounding variables. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of residual confounding. A concern in this analysis was whether to consider body mass index as a mediator of the relation between low-carbohydrate-diet score and risk of type 2 diabetes or as a potential confounder of the relation. In our cohort, total calories were similar across deciles of low-carbohydrate-diet score (Table 1). Furthermore, in most weight-loss trials, a low-carbohydrate-diet has not been associated with a significant increase in body weight (24–27). Therefore, we considered body mass index as a potential confounder and included it in the multivariate analyses.

The Nurses' Health Study consists of mostly white women with some college education. Although this homogeneity increases the internal validity of the study by reducing confounding by factors that are difficult to measure, the association between low-carbohydrate-diet score and risk of type 2 diabetes among women of other educational and racial backgrounds should also be investigated.

In conclusion, a diet lower in carbohydrate and higher in protein and fat did not increase the risk of type 2 diabetes in this cohort of women. In fact, when vegetable sources of fat and protein were chosen, these diets were associated with a modest reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes. These data support a potential benefit in reducing the glycemic load of the diet and for substituting low-glycemic fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and healthful sources of fat and protein for high-glycemic refined carbohydrates.

Acknowledgments

We thank the participants of the Nurses' Health Study for their participation and cooperation.

Footnotes

The authors' responsibilities were as follows—TLH: study design, data analysis, writing of manuscript; SL and JEM: study design and critical review of the manuscript; and FBH: funding, study design, data analysis, and writing of manuscript.

None of the authors had any financial or personal interest in any organizations sponsoring the research reported in this article.

2

Supported by grants DK58845 and CA87969 from the National Institutes of Health.

References

  • 1.Serdula MK, Mokdad AH, Williamson DF, Galuska DA, Mendlein JM, Heath GW. Prevalence of attempting weight loss and strategies for controlling weight. JAMA. 1999;282:1353–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.14.1353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults—the Evidence Report. Obes Res. 1998;6(suppl 2):51s–209s. Published erratum appears in Obes Res 1998;6: 464. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Thomas PR, editor. Weight the options: criteria for evaluating weight-management programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1995. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.ADA. Position of the American Dietetic Association: weight management. J Am Diet Assoc. 1997;97:71–4. doi: 10.1016/s0002-8223(97)00024-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Krauss RM, Deckelbaum RJ, Ernst N, et al. Dietary guidelines for healthy American adults: a statement for health professionals from the National Committee, American Heart Association. Circulation. 1996;94:195–800. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.94.7.1795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Steward HL, Bethea MC, Andrews SS, Balart LA. Sugar busters! New York, NY: Ballatine Publishing; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Eades MR, Eades MD. Protein power. New York, NY: Bantam Books; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Atkins RC. Dr Atkins new diet revolution. Rev. New York, NY: Avon Books; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sears B, Lawren B. The zone: a dietary road map to lose weight permanently, reset your genetic code, prevent disease, achieve maximum physical performance. New York, NY: HarperCollins; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Heller RF, Heller RF. The carbohydrate addict's diet: the lifelong solution to yo-yo dieting. New York, NY: New American Library; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.American Diabetes Association. Using the diabetes food pyramid. [16 September 2005]; Internet: http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-recipes/nutrition/foodpyramid.jsp.
  • 12.Halton TL, Willett WC, Liu S, et al. Low carbohydrate diet score and risk of coronary heart disease in women. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1991–2002. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa055317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Willett WC, Sampson L, Stampfer MJ, et al. Reproducibility and validity of a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. Am J Epidemiol. 1985;122:51–65. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Willett WC. Nutritional epidemiology. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, editors. Modern Epidemiology. 2nd. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1998. pp. 623–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Willett WC. Nutritional epidemiology. 2nd. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.USDA. Composition of foods: raw, processed and prepared. 1963-1992. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Chute CG, Litin LB, Willett WC. Validity of self reported waist and hip circumferences in men and women. Epidemiology. 1990;1:466–73. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199011000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hu FB, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, et al. Diet, lifestyle and the risk of type 2 diabetes in women. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:790–7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa010492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.National Diabetes Data Group. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and other categories of glucose intolerance. Diabetes. 1979;28:1039–57. doi: 10.2337/diab.28.12.1039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:1183–97. doi: 10.2337/diacare.20.7.1183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Manson JE, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, et al. Physical activity and incidence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in women. Lancet. 1991;338:774–8. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90664-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JA, et al. Dietary fat intake and the risk of coronary heart disease in women. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1491–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199711203372102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cox DR, Oakes D. Analysis of survival data. London, United Kingdom: Chapman and Hall; 1984. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Samaha FF, Iqbal N, Seshadri P, et al. A low-carbohydrate as compared with a low fat diet in severe obesity. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2074–81. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Stern L, Iqbal N, Seshadri P, et al. The effects of low-carbohydrate versus conventional weight loss diets in severely obese adults: one-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:778–85. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-10-200405180-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Foster GD, Wyatt HR, Hill JO, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2082–90. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Brehm BJ, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88:1617–23. doi: 10.1210/jc.2002-021480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Boden G, Sargrad K, Homko C, Mozzoli M, Stein T. Effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on appetite, blood glucose levels and insulin resistance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:403–11. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-6-200503150-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.McAuley KA, Hopkins CM, Smith KJ, et al. Comparison of high-fat and high-protein diets with a high-carbohydrate diet in insulin-resistant obese women. Diabetologia. 2005;48:8–16. doi: 10.1007/s00125-004-1603-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gannon M, Nuttall FQ. Effect of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on blood glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes. 2004;53:2375–82. doi: 10.2337/diabetes.53.9.2375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Swinburn BA, Boyce VL, Bergman RN, Howard BV, Bogardus C. Deterioration in carbohydrate metabolism and lipoprotein changes induced by modern, high fat diet in Pima Indians and Caucasians. J Clin Endocrin Metab. 1991;73:156–65. doi: 10.1210/jcem-73-1-156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hales CN, Randle PJ. Effects of low carbohydrate diet and diabetes mellitus on plasma concentrations of glucose, non-esterified fatty acid, and insulin during oral glucose tolerance tests. Lancet. 1963;1:790–4. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(63)91501-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Summers LK, Fielding BA, Bradshaw HA, et al. Substituting dietary saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat changes abdominal fat distribution and improves insulin sensitivity. Diabetologia. 2002;45:369–77. doi: 10.1007/s00125-001-0768-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lovejoy JC, Smith SR, Champagne CM, et al. Effects of diets enriched in saturated (palmitic), monounsaturated (oleic), or trans (elaidic) fatty acids on insulin sensitivity and substrate oxidation in healthy adults. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:1283–8. doi: 10.2337/diacare.25.8.1283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Vessby B, Unsitupa M, Hermansen K, et al. Substituting dietary saturated for monounsaturated fat impairs insulin sensitivity in healthy men and women: the KANWU Study. Diabetologia. 2001;44:312–9. doi: 10.1007/s001250051620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Meyer KA, Kushi LH, Jacobs DR, Folsom AR. Dietary fat and incidence of type 2 diabetes in older Iowa women. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:1528–35. doi: 10.2337/diacare.24.9.1528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Salmeron J, Hu FB, Manson JE, et al. Dietary fat intake and risk of type 2 diabetes in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73:1019–26. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/73.6.1019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Colditz GA, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Rosner B, Willett WC, Speizer FE. Diet and risk of clinical diabetes in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992;55:1018–23. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/55.5.1018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Salmeron J, Ascherio A, Rimm EB, et al. Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of NIDDM in men. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:545–50. doi: 10.2337/diacare.20.4.545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Feskens EJ, Virtanen SM, Rasanen L, et al. Dietary factors determining diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance. A 20-year follow-up of the Finnish and Dutch cohorts of the Seven Countries Study. Diabetes Care. 1995;18:1104–12. doi: 10.2337/diacare.18.8.1104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Van Dam RM, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Hu FB. Dietary fat and meat intake in relation to risk of type 2 diabetes in men. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:417–24. doi: 10.2337/diacare.25.3.417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hu FB, Van Dam RM, Liu S. Diet and risk of type 2 diabetes: the role of types of fat and carbohydrate. Diabetologia. 2001;44:805–17. doi: 10.1007/s001250100547. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lichtenstein AH, Schwab US. Relationship of dietary fat to glucose metabolism. Atherosclerosis. 2000;150:227–43. doi: 10.1016/s0021-9150(99)00504-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Howard BV, Abbott WG, Swinburn BA. Evaluation of metabolic effects of substitution of complex carbohydrates for saturated fat in individuals with obesity and NIDDM. Diabetes Care. 1991;14:786–95. doi: 10.2337/diacare.14.9.786. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Borkman M, Campbell LV, Chisholm DJ, Storlien LH. Comparison of the effects on insulin sensitivity of high carbohydrate and high fat diets in normal subjects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1991;72:432–7. doi: 10.1210/jcem-72-2-432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Westphal SA, Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ. The metabolic response to glucose ingested with various amounts of protein. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;52:267–72. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/52.2.267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ, Lane JT, Burmeister LA. Metabolic response to cottage cheese or egg white protein, with or without glucose in type 2 diabetic subjects. Metabolism. 1992;41:1137–45. doi: 10.1016/0026-0495(92)90300-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Khan MA, Gannon MC, Nuttal FQ. Glucose appearance rate following protein ingestion in normal subjects. J Am Coll Nutr. 1992;11:701–6. doi: 10.1080/07315724.1992.10718270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ, Grant CT, Ercan-Fang S, Ercan-Fang N. Stimulation of insulin secretion by fructose ingested with protein in people with untreated NIDDM. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:16–22. doi: 10.2337/diacare.21.1.16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Gannon MC, Nuttall JA, Damberg G, Gupta V, Nuttal FQ. Effect of protein ingestion on the glucose appearance rate in subjects with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2001;86:1040–7. doi: 10.1210/jcem.86.3.7263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Nuttall GQ, Gannon MC. Plasma glucose and insulin response to macronutrients in nondiabetic and NIDDM subjects. Diabetes Care. 1991;14:824–38. doi: 10.2337/diacare.14.9.824. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Floyd JC, Jr, Fajans SS, Conn JW, Knopf RF, Rull J. Insulin secretion in response to protein ingestion. J Clin Invest. 1966;45:1479–86. doi: 10.1172/JCI105455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Rabinowitz D, Merimee TJ, Moffezzoli R, Burgess JA. Patterns of hormonal release after glucose, protein and glucose plus protein. Lancet. 1966;2:454–6. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(66)92767-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Krezowski PA, Nuttal FQ, Gannon MC, Bartosh NH. The effect of protein ingestion on the metabolic response to oral glucose in normal individuals. Am J Clin Nutr. 1986;44:847–56. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/44.6.847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ, Saeed A, Jordan K, Hoover H. An increase in dietary protein improves the blood glucose response in persons with type 2 diabetes. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;78:734–41. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/78.4.734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Sargrad KR, Homko C, Mozzoli M, Boden G. Effect of high protein vs high carbohydrate intake on insulin sensitivity, body weight, hemoglobin A1c and blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105:573–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2005.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Meyer KA, Kushi LH, Jacobs DR, Slavin J, Sellers TA, Folsom AR. Carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and incident type 2 diabetes in older women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71:921–30. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/71.4.921. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Salmeron J, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Wing AL, Willett WC. Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in women. JAMA. 1997;277:472–7. doi: 10.1001/jama.1997.03540300040031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Schulze MB, Liu S, Rimm EB, Manson JE, Willett WC, Hu FB. Glycemic index, glycemic load and dietary fiber intake and incidence of type 2 diabetes in younger and middle aged women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80:348–56. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/80.2.348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Jenkins DJA, Wolever TMS, Taylor RH, et al. Glycemic index of foods; a physiological basis for carbohydrate exchange. Am J Clin Nutr. 1981;34:362–6. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/34.3.362. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Liu S, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, et al. A prospective study of dietary glycemic load, carbohydrate intake, and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71:1455–61. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/71.6.1455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Chew I, Brand JC, Thorburn AW, Truswell AS. Application of glycemic index to mixed meals. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988;47:53–6. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/47.1.53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Ludwig DS, Majzoub JA, Al-Zahrani A, et al. High glycemic index foods, overeating and obesity. Pediatrics. 1999;103:e261–6. doi: 10.1542/peds.103.3.e26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Frost G, Keogh B, Smith D, Akinsanya K, Leeds A. The effect of low glycemic carbohydrates on insulin and glucose response in vivo and in vitro in patients with coronary heart disease. Metabolism. 1996;45:669–72. doi: 10.1016/s0026-0495(96)90129-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Willett WC, Manson JE, Liu S. Glycemic index, glycemic load and risk of type 2 diabetes. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76(suppl):274S–80S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/76/1.274S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Frost G, Leeds A, Trew G, Margara R, Dornhorst A. Insulin sensitivity in women at risk of coronary heart disease and the effect of a low glycemic diet. Metabolism. 1998;47:1245–51. doi: 10.1016/s0026-0495(98)90331-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Stevens J, Ahn K, Juhaeri, Houston D, Steffan L, Couper D. Dietary fiber intake and glycemic index and incidence of diabetes in African-American and white adults. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:1715–21. doi: 10.2337/diacare.25.10.1715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES