We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editor's Correspondence |

Glycemic Load and Cardiovascular Risk

Peter Clifton, MD, PhD
Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(2):206. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.2.206-a.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


McMillan-Price and colleagues1 are to be congratulated for performing a large study to examine the impact of low-glycemic-load weight loss diets. However, the conclusions do not tally with the data in the article. All diets caused fat loss, and there was no significant difference between them. The post hoc analysis of weight loss in women is not justified without first showing a significant interaction between sex and fat loss. Although the high-carbohydrate, low–glycemic index (GI) diet lowered low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels the most, the high-protein, low-GI diet lowered the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio the most. Thus, the conclusion that the high-carbohydrate, low-GI diet is best for lowering heart disease risk is not justified on the data presented. The results of the study in relation to LDL-C are very unusual, since striking reductions in saturated fat were reported with all the diets but elevations in LDL-C levels were observed in 2 of the diets. The fact that HDL-C level rose despite the reported reductions in total dietary fat in all the diets casts doubt on the food records. The low level of energy reported in the food records does not accord with the relatively low amount of weight lost. Perhaps the diets are best described as recommended patterns rather than controlled diets.

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Update on the molecular biology of dyslipidemias. Clin Chim Acta Published online Nov 4, 2015;

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
From Evidence to Recommendations

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Overall Confidence in Effect Estimates