Dietary carbohydrates: role of quality and quantity in chronic disease

David S Ludwig, professor1 2 3, Frank B Hu, professor3 4, Luc Tappy, professor5, Jennie Brand-Miller, professor6

Carbohydrate is the only macronutrient with no established minimum requirement. Although many populations have thrived with carbohydrate as their main source of energy, others have done so with few if any carbohydrate containing foods throughout much of the year (eg, traditional diets of the Inuit, Laplanders, and some Native Americans).12 If carbohydrate is not necessary for survival, it raises questions about the amount and type of this macronutrient needed for optimal health, longevity, and sustainability. This review focuses on these current controversies, with special focus on obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and early death.

Role of carbohydrate consumption in human development

The large brain of modern humans is energetically expensive, requiring a disproportionate share of dietary energy compared with that of other primates. The first hunting and gathering societies were characterised by greater consumption of not only animal foods but also plant foods with greater carbohydrate availability than leaves—including ripe fruit, honey, and eventually cooked starchy foods.34 The higher nutrient and energy density of this diet allowed for evolution of a smaller gastrointestinal tract, offsetting the energy demands of the brain.5

As a result of selective pressures related to dietary changes, two major gene adaptations occurred affecting carbohydrate digestion: average salivary amylase gene copy number (AMY1) increased more than threefold, with substantial variation among populations related to starch consumption6; and lactase persistence into adulthood developed in multiple geographically distinct populations, facilitating digestion of the milk sugar lactose.7 After our transition to an agrarian lifestyle in the Neolithic period, beginning 12 000 to 14 000 years ago, total carbohydrate intake increased substantially as grains became a dietary staple, but archaeological evidence shows that diet related problems also emerged, including endemic nutrient deficiencies, a decrease in mean height, and dental caries.8910

Relation between carbohydrate types and health outcomes

Carbohydrates are formally defined as containing carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in the ratio of 1:2:1. In practice, dietary carbohydrates comprise compounds that can be digested or metabolically transformed directly into glucose, or that undergo oxidation into pyruvate, including some sugar alcohols (eg, sorbitol). Several systems for classifying carbohydrates have been in use, with varying relevance to health outcomes.

Chain length

Carbohydrates can be categorised according to degree of polymerisation into monosaccharides (monomers), disaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides (starch). Conventionally, carbohydrate polymer length is believed to determine the rate of digestion and absorption, and therefore the rise in blood glucose after eating. People with diabetes were therefore instructed to avoid sugars and emphasise starchy foods.11 However, research beginning 50 years ago showed no meaningful relation between carbohydrate chain length and postprandial glycaemia or insulinaemia.1213 Modern starchy foods such as bread, potatoes, and rice raise blood glucose and insulin substantially more than some high sugar foods (eg, whole fruits).14 By contrast, some traditionally consumed starches (legumes, whole kernel grains, pasta, long fermentation sourdough bread) release glucose more slowly because the starch is protected from digestion by the food matrix (gelatinised) or because the presence of organic acids slows gastric emptying.

Glycaemic index and glycaemic load

Although carbohydrates are the only food constituents that directly increase blood glucose (the main determinant of insulin secretion), population studies suggest that the total amount of carbohydrate as a percentage of dietary energy is less important than the carbohydrate type for risk of chronic disease. Refined grains, potatoes, and sugar sweetened beverages are associated with increased risk,15 whereas minimally processed grains, legumes, and whole fruits are associated with reduced risk.16 This distinction may be explained partly by differences in how specific carbohydrates affect postprandial hyperglycaemia and hyperinsulinaema, which are causally related to the development of type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, and perhaps obesity.17

Two empirical metrics have been introduced to rank foods according to effects on blood glucose: glycaemic index (GI) and glycaemic load (GL) (table 1). The GI compares foods based on a standardised amount of available carbohydrate. Glycaemic load (GI multiplied by the amount of carbohydrate in a typical serving) allows the glycaemic effect of foods, meals, and whole diets to be compared as realistically consumed, and it has been shown to be a better predictor of glycaemic response than the amounts of carbohydrate, protein, and fat in food.18 Prospective observational studies have reported that higher energy adjusted GI or total GL is an independent risk factor for type 2 diabetes in men and women19; cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, including stroke, in women202122; and certain types of cancers in both sexes,2324 though some have questioned the strength and consistency of these findings.25

Table 1

Carbohydrate content and glycaemic index of representative foods

FoodServing size (g)Available carbohydrate*
(g) per serving
Glycaemic index†Glycaemic load
Rice, jasmine, boiled120 328628
Instant oat porridge/oatmeal250 267921
Rice, basmati, boiled120 305717
Potato, boiled150 207816
Breakfast cereal, flaked30 227216
Pasta, white or brown, boiled120 314915
Bread, white or brown40 197514
Traditional oat porridge250 245513
Fruit juice250 mL245012
Fruit, tropical120 16589
Barley, boiled120 34289
Bread, wholemeal 40 13547
Legumes, boiled150 22317
Fruit, temperate 120 14426
Pumpkin, boiled75 8645
Milk250 mL12324
Nuts30 7252
  1. Available carbohydrate may vary depending on specific brand or country of origin
  2. GI data are average values adapted from Atkinson et al14 and unpublished observations from the Sydney University Glycemic Index Research Service, 2018.

Fibre and resistant starch

Fibre or non-starch polysaccharide is plant carbohydrate that is not digestible by human enzymes. Fibre and resistant starch provide, to varying degrees, substrate for colonic microbial fermentation, leading to the production of short chain fatty acids that provide a direct energy source for colonic epithelium and influence hepatic insulin sensitivity.26 Fibre can be classed as soluble (viscous or non-viscous) and non-soluble, properties that influence gastrointestinal absorption and metabolic effects. Viscous fibres such as vegetable gums and those derived from fruits, legumes, and psyllium slow down digestion and reduce postprandial glycaemia and cholesterol absorption, whereas insoluble fibres (eg, from wheat bran) have limited metabolic actions.

Added and free sugar

Added sugars are defined as sugars that are added to foods during food processing, manufacturing, or preparation. The newer term, “free sugars,” also includes sugars naturally present in unsweetened fruit juices: otherwise, these two terms are interchangeable. Under this definition, only lactose naturally present in milk products and sugars contained within the cellular structure of foods (eg, whole fruits) would be excluded.27

Most health authorities agree that overconsumption of added sugars, and particularly sugar sweetened drinks, has contributed to the obesity epidemic.27 In the higher quality prospective observational studies, changes in consumption of sugary drinks are directly associated with changes in energy intake28 and body weight.29 Furthermore, two large randomised controlled trials found that elimination of sugary drinks reduced body weight among adolescents at one year30 and among younger children at 18 months.31 In meta-analyses of trials in adults consuming unrestricted diets, reduced intake of added sugars is associated with a modest decrease in body weight, while higher intake is associated with a comparable gain. Isocaloric substitution of sugars for other carbohydrate, however, did not affect body weight.32

The potential mechanisms relating sugar to weight gain remain a topic of debate. Several investigators have highlighted the potential role of fructose.33343536373839 Fructose is metabolised primarily in the gut and liver and, under certain experimental conditions, can stimulate de novo lipogenesis, inflammation, and insulin resistance. However, the relevance of these findings to typical consumption patterns has been questioned.4041 Moreover, high intakes of fruits with relatively high amounts of fructose are associated with good metabolic health, suggesting that the food source of fructose is also important.42

The relative contribution of added sugar versus other carbohydrates to the obesity epidemic remains unknown. Indeed, high GL starchy foods (without fructose) contribute substantially more calories to typical Western diets than added sugar.43 In Australia, intakes of added sugars and sugar sweetened drinks have progressively declined since the 1990s, even as mean body mass index in adults and children has risen sharply.44

Beyond body weight, meta-analyses of randomised trials indicate that higher intakes of added sugars raise triglycerides, total cholesterol, blood pressure, and other risk factors for cardiovascular disease.38454647 Of special concern is non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, an obesity related condition that has emerged as a major public health threat. Reduction of fructose or sugar consumption in several clinical trials resulted in lower intrahepatic fat.484950 However, each of these studies has design limitations, such as lack of a control group and confounding by unintended weight loss. In a six month trial, people consuming sugar sweetened drinks had higher levels of liver and ectopic fat than those consuming drinks without added sugar, even though body weight did not differ by diet group.47

Based on the finding that “increasing or decreasing free sugars is associated with parallel changes in body weight … regardless of the level of intake of free sugars,” the 2015 WHO guidelines recommended that consumption of free sugars should be less than 10% of energy intake for both adults and children, with potential additional benefits below 5%.27 The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition in the UK recommended a 5% upper limit, noting potential benefits at this lower level for dental health and total energy intake.51 (Modern starchy foods may also contribute to dental carries.52) The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend a limit on added sugars of 10% total energy.53

Composite quality indices

Beyond the mechanisms implied by these broad classification systems, carbohydrate containing foods may influence health in various other ways. Whole plant foods contain myriad compounds with demonstrably beneficial (vitamins, minerals, and antioxidant and anti-inflammatory phytochemicals) or possibly adverse54 (lectins, phytates) actions. Ultimately, diet must be considered in an integrated fashion, with changes in consumption of one category of food affecting others. The nature of these exchanges will determine the apparent healthfulness of specific foods in population studies. Recognising this challenge, several indices for carbohydrate quality (based on GI, fibre, whole:total grain consumption, and other factors) and total diet quality have been proposed.

How do carbohydrate containing foods affect health?


Grains—the seeds of cereal grasses and similar plant families—are staple foods and a major source of dietary carbohydrate worldwide. Minimally processed whole grains retain all three components of the seed. Refined grains are processed to remove the protein and fat rich germ and fibre rich bran, leaving only the starchy endosperm. Meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials indicate that, compared with diets without them, whole grains produce small but significant reductions in low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, total cholesterol, and percentage body fat; they also improve postprandial glucose levels and glucose homeostasis.555657

Prospective cohort studies have also shown significant inverse associations between whole grain intake and incidence of type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, ischaemic stroke, total cardiovascular disease, and several cancers, as well as risk of death from all causes.5859606162 Conversely, greater refined grain intake, especially from white rice, is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes.5963 Whole kernel or coarsely milled grains tend to have lower GI than refined grains and contain higher amounts of fibre and phytochemicals with potential anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties.

However, the relative health benefits of whole grains and wholemeal foods compared with other categories of whole foods with lower carbohydrate content (eg, nuts, seeds, legumes, avocado, olives) has not been well studied. Furthermore, most whole grains in processed foods do not contain the intact whole grain kernel but have been milled into a fine particle size (thus higher GI) flour, with varying amounts of bran and germ reincorporated. Therefore, food labelled as whole grain may not have the same health benefits as intact or minimally processed whole kernel grains (wheat berries, steel cut oats, quinoa), and some whole grain foods contain high amounts of added sugar.


Potatoes, the leading vegetable food in most countries, are another major source of dietary carbohydrate. Although potatoes have some nutrients (such as vitamin C, potassium, and fibre), they contain predominantly starch with a high GI as typically eaten.14 In three cohorts of US men and women, increased intake of potatoes was associated with greater weight gain64 and higher risk of type 2 diabetes, even after adjustment for body mass index and other diabetes risk factors.65 In the same cohorts, higher intake of baked, boiled, or mashed potatoes and French fries was independently associated with an increased risk of developing hypertension.66 Thus, the health effects of potatoes more closely resemble those of refined grains than those of other vegetables.


Legumes such as beans, peas, and lentils, like whole grains, improve nutritional quality and health outcomes when included in typical dietary patterns. Legumes contain low GI carbohydrate and relatively high amounts of protein, fibre, and other nutrients.1467 A meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials found a significant decrease in total and LDL cholesterol for non-soy legume dietary interventions compared with control diets.68 Another meta-analysis found a 10% lower risk of cardiovascular disease comparing the highest with the lowest categories of consumption.69 In a Costa Rican population, increasing the ratio of beans to white rice was associated with lower cardiometabolic risk factors, including blood lipids and blood pressure.70


Whole fruits are high in fibre, vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals and typically have moderate to low GL.14 Regular consumption of fruits is associated with lower risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all-cause mortality in prospective cohort studies.717273 Greater consumption of whole fruits (especially blueberries, grapes, and apples) is significantly associated with lower risk of diabetes, whereas greater consumption of fruit juices is associated with a higher risk in three US cohorts.74 Compared with whole fruits, fruit juices tend to have less fibre, fewer micronutrients, and higher GI,75 and for these reasons, classifying whole fruits and juices together in dietary recommendations is controversial.

What are the metabolic effects of carbohydrates in populations?

Residents in places associated with extreme longevity have traditionally consumed high carbohydrate diets, although associated healthy lifestyle factors may confound a causal interpretation.76 By contrast, the PURE study in 18 countries reported that higher carbohydrate intake was associated with increased mortality, but here too, confounding is possible (eg, many people in low income countries subsist predominantly on starchy foods such as white rice).7778 In long term large cohorts studied in the US, total carbohydrate intake is also associated with higher mortality, though the type of dietary fat importantly modified risk.79 Analogously, substitution of saturated fat with low GI carbohydrate is associated with lower risk of myocardial infarction, whereas substitution with high GI carbohydrates is associated with higher risk.80

Clinical trials have shown that low carbohydrate diets produce greater weight loss than lower fat diets in the short term, but this difference diminishes with time because of poor long term compliance.8182838485 The recent DIETFITs study reported a non-significant advantage for a healthy low carbohydrate versus healthy low fat diet, but both groups were counselled to limit sugar, refined grains, and processed foods in general.86 Thus evidence suggests that the type of carbohydrates may have a greater effect on health outcomes than total amount for the general population. However, specific groups may respond differently to the carbohydrate quantity and quality.

Insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and diabetes

The metabolic syndrome (characterised by central adiposity, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, hyperglycaemia, and chronic inflammation) contributes importantly to risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease worldwide. An underlying cause of this syndrome is insulin resistance and the associated increase in circulating insulin levels. Since insulin resistance reflects diminished ability to promote uptake of glucose into target organs, some investigators have proposed a reduced carbohydrate diet as part of treatment.87 Observational and experimental data suggest that people with low levels of physical activity or obesity (major contributors to insulin resistance) may be especially sensitive to the adverse metabolic effects of diets high in sugar or GL8889—perhaps explaining how Asian farming societies can maintain low adiposity and cardiovascular disease rates on white rice based diets.

People with diabetes may particularly benefit from reducing consumption of foods that increase postprandial blood glucose. Preliminary evidence suggests improved glycaemic control, lower triglycerides, and other metabolic advantages from low carbohydrate or low GI diets in both type 190 and type 2 diabetes,91 though long term data on efficacy and safety are lacking.

Early insulin secretion

Early insulin secretion reflects the tendency of the pancreatic β cells to release insulin rapidly after carbohydrate ingestion. This clinical measure, distinct from insulin resistance, can be assessed as the blood insulin concentration 30 minutes into a standard oral glucose tolerance test (insulin 30).92 According to the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity, people with high insulin secretion would be especially susceptible to weight gain on a high GL diet, a hypothesis with some support from laboratory, observational, and clinical research.939495 High insulin action in adipose tissue may have an anabolic effect that promotes fat deposition, leading to increased hunger and lower energy expenditure. A recent Mendelian randomisation study found that genetically determined insulin 30 results strongly predicted body mass index.96 However, neither insulin 30 nor genetic risk was found to modify response to diet in DIETFITS, although GL was notably low in both diet groups of that study.86

Salivary amylase

The diploid copy number of the salivary amylase gene (AMY1) varies widely, affecting amylase protein concentration in saliva. People with higher copy numbers have higher postprandial glycaemia after consumption of starchy (but not sugary) foods.97 High AMY1 copy number may have provided a survival advantage, but its relevance to obesity and metabolic disease today remains unclear.9899100 A recent study reported a diet-gene interaction such that the lowest body mass index was observed among people with high starch intake and low AMY1 copy number (reflecting low genetic capacity to digest starch).99


Although human populations have thrived on diets with widely varying macronutrient ratios, the recent influx of rapidly digestible, high GI carbohydrates in developed nations has contributed to the epidemics of obesity and cardiometabolic disease. Moreover, the traditional starch based diets of some developing nations have likely contributed to rising risk of chronic disease, with the decrease in physical activity and higher body mass index associated with rapid urbanisation.

However, carbohydrate quality seems to have a more important role in population health than carbohydrate amount. A strong case can be made for consumption of high GL grains, potato products, and added sugars (especially in drinks) being causally related to obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and some cancers; whereas non-starchy vegetables, whole fruits, legumes, and whole kernel grains appear protective. Nevertheless, the metabolic effects of total and high GI carbohydrate may vary among individuals, depending on the degree of insulin resistance, glucose intolerance, or other inherited or acquired biological predispositions.

Despite much new knowledge about the metabolic effects of carbohydrate and areas of broad consensus, many controversies remain. Most long term data derive from observational studies, which may be affected by confounding and other methodological problems. Most randomised controlled trials are short, rely on proxy measures, lack blinding, do not control for treatment intensity between dietary groups, and have limited compliance. Additional relevant considerations in effectiveness studies include the behavioural and environmental factors (eg, food availability and affordability) affecting compliance. The resolution of these controversies (summarised in box 1) will require mechanistically oriented feeding studies and long term clinical trials, prospective observational research, and examination of economic and environmental impacts.

Box 1

Carbohydrate controversies

  • Would reduction in total carbohydrate intake (currently typically 45-65% of total energy) help control body weight in general population and susceptible subgroups?

  • What is the role of a low carbohydrate diet in prevention and treatment of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes, and in management of type 1 diabetes?

  • Does ketosis induced by severe carbohydrate restriction provide any unique metabolic benefits and, if so, in what clinical settings would this diet be advisable?

  • To what level should added (or free) sugars be restricted for optimum individual health and for the population as a whole?

  • Would substitution of fructose in added sugars with glucose based sweeteners provide metabolic benefit or harm?

  • Would substitution of free sugars with poorly digestible sugars, sugar alcohols, or artificial sweeteners provide health benefits or harms (eg, unexpected effects on the microbiome)?

  • Would increased intake of resistant starch provide health benefits?

  • What are the health effects of substituting whole grains with other high carbohydrate (fruits, legumes) or high fat (nuts, seeds, avocado) whole plant foods?

  • What are the long term effects of different types of carbohydrates on population risk of cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and cognitive function?

  • Which carbohydrate based foods will provide an optimal combination of health benefits, environmental sustainability, cost, and public acceptability?

Key messages

  • Human populations have thrived on diets with widely varying carbohydrate content

  • Carbohydrate quality has a major influence on risk for numerous chronic diseases

  • Replacing processed carbohydrates with unprocessed carbohydrates or healthy fats would greatly benefit public health

  • The benefit of replacing fructose containing sugars with other processed carbohydrates is unclear

  • People with severe insulin resistance or diabetes may benefit from reduction of total carbohydrate intake


  1. Contributors and sources: All authors contributed to the first draft of the manuscript and provided critical revisions. DSL is guarantor. We thank Fiona Atkinson for help with development of table 1.
  2. Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: DSL received research grants (to Boston Children’s Hospital) from the National Institutes of Health, Nutrition Science Initiative, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and other philanthropic organisations unaffiliated with the food industry; and received royalties for books on obesity and nutrition that recommend a low glycaemic load diet. FBH received research support from California Walnut Commission and lecture fees from Metagenics. LT received grants (to University of Lausanne) from the Swiss National Science Foundation from the Swiss Federal Bureau for Sport, and research support from Sorematec Italy (to Hôpital Intercantonal de la Broye) for a clinical trial related to physical activity in the treatment of patients with the metabolic syndrome; and received speakers fees from the Gatorade Sport Science Institute, Soremartec Italy, and Nestlé SA. JBM received research grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the European Union, the Glycemic Index Foundation; and received royalties for books on nutrition that recommend a low glycaemic index diet. She oversees a glycaemic index testing service at the University of Sydney and is president and non-executive director of the Glycemic Index Foundation.
  3. Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
  4. This article is one of a series commissioned by The BMJ. Open access fees for the series were funded by Swiss Re, which had no input into the commissioning or peer review of the articles. The BMJ thanks the series advisers, Nita Forouhi and Dariush Mozaffarian, for valuable advice and guiding selection of topics in the series.


  1. L Håglin. Nutrient intake among Saami people today compared with an old, traditional Saami diet. Arctic Med Res1991;Suppl:741-6.1365287
  2. P Heinbecker. Studies on the metabolism of Eskimos. J Biol Chem1928;80:461-75.
  3. K HardyJ Brand-MillerKD BrownMG ThomasL Copeland. The importance of dietary carbohydrate in human evolution. Q Rev Biol2015;90:251-68. 10.1086/682587 26591850
  4. FW MarloweJC BerbesqueB WoodA CrittendenC PorterA Mabulla. Honey, Hadza, hunter-gatherers, and human evolution. J Hum Evol2014;71:119-28. 10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.03.006 24746602
  5. WR LeonardJJ SnodgrassML Robertson. Effects of brain evolution on human nutrition and metabolism. Annu Rev Nutr2007;27:311-27. 10.1146/annurev.nutr.27.061406.093659 17439362
  6. GH PerryNJ DominyKG Claw. Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation. Nat Genet2007;39:1256-60. 10.1038/ng2123 17828263
  7. L SégurelC Bon. On the evolution of lactase persistence in humans. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet2017;18:297-319. 10.1146/annurev-genom-091416-035340 28426286
  8. P Hujoel. Dietary carbohydrates and dental-systemic diseases. J Dent Res2009;88:490-502. 10.1177/0022034509337700 19587153
  9. LT HumphreyI De GrooteJ Morales. Earliest evidence for caries and exploitation of starchy plant foods in Pleistocene hunter-gatherers from Morocco. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2014;111:954-9. 10.1073/pnas.1318176111 24395774
  10. A MummertE EscheJ RobinsonGJ Armelagos. Stature and robusticity during the agricultural transition: evidence from the bioarchaeological record. Econ Hum Biol2011;9:284-301. 10.1016/j.ehb.2011.03.004 21507735
  11. PA CrapoJM Olefsky. Food fallacies and blood sugar. N Engl J Med1983;309:44-5. 10.1056/NEJM198307073090109 6855853
  12. JP BantleDC LaineGW CastleJW ThomasBJ HoogwerfFC Goetz. Postprandial glucose and insulin responses to meals containing different carbohydrates in normal and diabetic subjects. N Engl J Med1983;309:7-12. 10.1056/NEJM198307073090102 6343873
  13. ML WahlqvistEG WilmshurstEN Richardson. The effect of chain length on glucose absorption and the related metabolic response. Am J Clin Nutr1978;31:1998-2001. 10.1093/ajcn/31.11.1998 717261
  14. FS AtkinsonK Foster-PowellJC Brand-Miller. International tables of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2008. Diabetes Care2008;31:2281-3. 10.2337/dc08-1239 18835944
  15. SH LeyO HamdyV MohanFB Hu. Prevention and management of type 2 diabetes: dietary components and nutritional strategies. Lancet2014;383:1999-2007. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60613-9 24910231
  16. A MenteL de KoningHS ShannonSS Anand. A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med2009;169:659-69. 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.38 19364995
  17. DS Ludwig. The glycemic index: physiological mechanisms relating to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. JAMA2002;287:2414-23. 10.1001/jama.287.18.2414 11988062
  18. J BaoF AtkinsonP PetoczWC WillettJC Brand-Miller. Prediction of postprandial glycemia and insulinemia in lean, young, healthy adults: glycemic load compared with carbohydrate content alone. Am J Clin Nutr2011;93:984-96. 10.3945/ajcn.110.005033 21325437
  19. G LiveseyR TaylorH LiveseyS Liu. Is there a dose-response relation of dietary glycemic load to risk of type 2 diabetes? Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Am J Clin Nutr2013;97:584-96. 10.3945/ajcn.112.041467 23364021
  20. JY DongYH ZhangP WangLQ Qin. Meta-analysis of dietary glycemic load and glycemic index in relation to risk of coronary heart disease. Am J Cardiol2012;109:1608-13. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.01.385 22440121
  21. J FanY SongY WangR HuiW Zhang. Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, and risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and stroke mortality: a systematic review with meta-analysis. PLoS One2012;7:e52182. 10.1371/journal.pone.0052182 23284926
  22. A MirrahimiRJ de SouzaL Chiavaroli. Associations of glycemic index and load with coronary heart disease events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohorts. J Am Heart Assoc2012;1:e000752. 10.1161/JAHA.112.000752 23316283
  23. JY DongLQ Qin. Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, and risk of breast cancer: meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat2011;126:287-94. 10.1007/s10549-011-1343-3 21221764
  24. P GnagnarellaS GandiniC La VecchiaP Maisonneuve. Glycemic index, glycemic load, and cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr2008;87:1793-801. 10.1093/ajcn/87.6.1793 18541570
  25. AS KristoNR MatthanAH Lichtenstein. Effect of diets differing in glycemic index and glycemic load on cardiovascular risk factors: review of randomized controlled-feeding trials. Nutrients2013;5:1071-80. 10.3390/nu5041071 23538939
  26. KE Bach Knudsen. Microbial degradation of whole-grain complex carbohydrates and impact on short-chain fatty acids and health. Adv Nutr2015;6:206-13. 10.3945/an.114.007450 25770259
  27. WHO. Sugars intake for adults and children: Guideline. WHO, 2015.
  28. LR VartanianMB SchwartzKD Brownell. Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health2007;97:667-75. 10.2105/AJPH.2005.083782 17329656
  29. VS MalikA PanWC WillettFB Hu. Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr2013;98:1084-102. 10.3945/ajcn.113.058362 23966427
  30. CB EbbelingHA FeldmanVR Chomitz. A randomized trial of sugar-sweetened beverages and adolescent body weight. N Engl J Med2012;367:1407-16. 10.1056/NEJMoa1203388 22998339
  31. JC de RuyterMR OlthofJC SeidellMB Katan. A trial of sugar-free or sugar-sweetened beverages and body weight in children. N Engl J Med2012;367:1397-406. 10.1056/NEJMoa1203034 22998340
  32. L Te MorengaS MallardJ Mann. Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. BMJ2012;346:e7492. 10.1136/bmj.e7492 23321486
  33. GA Bray. Soft drink consumption and obesity: it is all about fructose. Curr Opin Lipidol2010;21:51-7. 10.1097/MOL.0b013e3283346ca2 19956074
  34. VC CamposL Tappy. Physiological handling of dietary fructose-containing sugars: implications for health. Int J Obes (Lond)2016;40(Suppl 1):S6-11. 10.1038/ijo.2016.8 27001645
  35. JJ DiNicolantonioV MehtaN OnkaramurthyJH O’Keefe. Fructose-induced inflammation and increased cortisol: A new mechanism for how sugar induces visceral adiposity. Prog Cardiovasc Dis2017 Dec 8:S0033-0620(17)30162-7. [Epub ahead of print.] 10.1016/j.pcad.2017.12.001. 29225114
  36. MI GoranK DumkeSG BouretB KayserRW WalkerB Blumberg. The obesogenic effect of high fructose exposure during early development. Nat Rev Endocrinol2013;9:494-500. 10.1038/nrendo.2013.108 23732284
  37. RH LustigLA SchmidtCD Brindis. Public health: The toxic truth about sugar. Nature2012;482:27-9. 10.1038/482027a 22297952
  38. VS MalikFB Hu. Fructose and Cardiometabolic Health: What the Evidence From Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tells Us. J Am Coll Cardiol2015;66:1615-24. 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.08.025 26429086
  39. KL Stanhope. Role of fructose-containing sugars in the epidemics of obesity and metabolic syndrome. Annu Rev Med2012;63:329-43. 10.1146/annurev-med-042010-113026 22034869
  40. JL SievenpiperRJ de SouzaA Mirrahimi. Effect of fructose on body weight in controlled feeding trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med2012;156:291-304. 10.7326/0003-4819-156-4-201202210-00007 22351714
  41. JS White. Challenging the fructose hypothesis: new perspectives on fructose consumption and metabolism. Adv Nutr2013;4:246-56. 10.3945/an.112.003137 23493541
  42. DS Ludwig. Examining the health effects of fructose. JAMA2013;310:33-4. 10.1001/jama.2013.6562 23732692
  43. JFWE Consultation. Carbohydrates in human nutrition. (FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 66). Rome, 1997.
  44. JC Brand-MillerAW Barclay. Declining consumption of added sugars and sugar-sweetened beverages in Australia: a challenge for obesity prevention. Am J Clin Nutr2017;105:854-63. 10.3945/ajcn.116.145318 28275129
  45. KL StanhopeV MediciAA Bremer. A dose-response study of consuming high-fructose corn syrup-sweetened beverages on lipid/lipoprotein risk factors for cardiovascular disease in young adults. Am J Clin Nutr2015;101:1144-54. 10.3945/ajcn.114.100461 25904601
  46. LA Te MorengaAJ HowatsonRM JonesJ Mann. Dietary sugars and cardiometabolic risk: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of the effects on blood pressure and lipids. Am J Clin Nutr2014;100:65-79. 10.3945/ajcn.113.081521 24808490
  47. M MaerskA BelzaH Stødkilde-Jørgensen. Sucrose-sweetened beverages increase fat storage in the liver, muscle, and visceral fat depot: a 6-mo randomized intervention study. Am J Clin Nutr2012;95:283-9. 10.3945/ajcn.111.022533 22205311
  48. V CamposC DesplandV Brandejsky. Sugar- and artificially sweetened beverages and intrahepatic fat: A randomized controlled trial. Obesity (Silver Spring)2015;23:2335-9. 10.1002/oby.21310. 26727115
  49. JM SchwarzSM NoworolskiA Erkin-Cakmak. Effects of Dietary Fructose Restriction on Liver Fat, De Novo Lipogenesis, and Insulin Kinetics in Children With Obesity. Gastroenterology2017;153:743-52. 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.043. 28579536
  50. LDR Ibarra-ReynosoHL López-LemusME Garay-SevillaJM Malacara. Effect of Restriction of Foods with High Fructose Corn Syrup Content on Metabolic Indices and Fatty Liver in Obese Children. Obes Facts2017;10:332-40. 10.1159/000476069. 28787728
  51. Public Health England. Carbohydrates and health. Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, 2015.
  52. P LingströmJ van HouteS Kashket. Food starches and dental caries. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med2000;11:366-80. 10.1177/10454411000110030601 11021636
  53. US Department of Health and Human Services, US Department of Agriculture. 2015–2020 dietary guidelines for Americans. 8th ed. DHHS, 2015.
  54. IM VasconcelosJT Oliveira. Antinutritional properties of plant lectins. Toxicon2004;44:385-403. 10.1016/j.toxicon.2004.05.005 15302522
  55. PL HollænderAB RossM Kristensen. Whole-grain and blood lipid changes in apparently healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Am J Clin Nutr2015;102:556-72. 10.3945/ajcn.115.109165 26269373
  56. S MarventanoC VetraniM VitaleJ GodosG RiccardiG Grosso. Whole grain intake and glycaemic control in healthy subjects: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutrients2017;9:E769. 10.3390/nu9070769 28753929
  57. K PolR ChristensenEM BartelsA RabenI TetensM Kristensen. Whole grain and body weight changes in apparently healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Am J Clin Nutr2013;98:872-84. 10.3945/ajcn.113.064659 23945718
  58. D AuneN KeumE Giovannucci. Whole grain consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all cause and cause specific mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. BMJ2016;353:i2716. 10.1136/bmj.i2716 27301975
  59. D AuneT NoratP RomundstadLJ Vatten. Whole grain and refined grain consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of cohort studies. Eur J Epidemiol2013;28:845-58. 10.1007/s10654-013-9852-5 24158434
  60. J ChenQ HuangW ShiL YangJ ChenQ Lan. Meta-Analysis of the Association Between Whole and Refined Grain Consumption and Stroke Risk Based on Prospective Cohort Studies. Asia Pac J Public Health2016;28:563-75. 10.1177/1010539516650722 27217429
  61. G TangD WangJ LongF YangL Si. Meta-analysis of the association between whole grain intake and coronary heart disease risk. Am J Cardiol2015;115:625-9. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.12.015 25727082
  62. G ZongA GaoFB HuQ Sun. Whole Grain Intake and Mortality From All Causes, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. Circulation2016;133:2370-80. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.021101 27297341
  63. EA HuA PanV MalikQ Sun. White rice consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis and systematic review. BMJ2012;344:e1454. 10.1136/bmj.e1454. 10.1136/bmj.e1454 22422870
  64. D MozaffarianT HaoEB RimmWC WillettFB Hu. Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N Engl J Med2011;364:2392-404. 10.1056/NEJMoa1014296 21696306
  65. I MurakiEB RimmWC WillettJE MansonFB HuQ Sun. Potato Consumption and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: Results From Three Prospective Cohort Studies. Diabetes Care2016;39:376-84. 10.2337/dc15-0547 26681722
  66. L BorgiEB RimmWC WillettJP Forman. Potato intake and incidence of hypertension: results from three prospective US cohort studies. BMJ2016;353:i2351. 10.1136/bmj.i2351 27189229
  67. J MatteiV MalikNM WedickGlobal Nutrition Epidemiologic Transition Initiative. Reducing the global burden of type 2 diabetes by improving the quality of staple foods: The Global Nutrition and Epidemiologic Transition Initiative. Global Health2015;11:23. 10.1186/s12992-015-0109-9 26040275
  68. LA BazzanoAM ThompsonMT TeesCH NguyenDM Winham. Non-soy legume consumption lowers cholesterol levels: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis2011;21:94-103. 10.1016/j.numecd.2009.08.012 19939654
  69. S MarventanoM Izquierdo PulidoC Sánchez-González. Legume consumption and CVD risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Public Health Nutr2017;20:245-54. 10.1017/S1368980016002299 28077199
  70. J MatteiFB HuH Campos. A higher ratio of beans to white rice is associated with lower cardiometabolic risk factors in Costa Rican adults. Am J Clin Nutr2011;94:869-76. 10.3945/ajcn.111.013219 21813808
  71. D AuneE GiovannucciP Boffetta. Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer and all-cause mortality-a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int J Epidemiol2017;46:1029-56. 10.1093/ije/dyw319 28338764
  72. PY WangJC FangZH GaoC ZhangSY Xie. Higher intake of fruits, vegetables or their fiber reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis. J Diabetes Investig2016;7:56-69. 10.1111/jdi.12376 26816602
  73. H DuL LiD BennettChina Kadoorie Biobank Study. Fresh Fruit Consumption and Major Cardiovascular Disease in China. N Engl J Med2016;374:1332-43. 10.1056/NEJMoa1501451 27050205
  74. I MurakiF ImamuraJE Manson. Fruit consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: results from three prospective longitudinal cohort studies. BMJ2013;347:f5001. 10.1136/bmj.f5001 23990623
  75. FB HuVS Malik. Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes: epidemiologic evidence. Physiol Behav2010;100:47-54. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.01.036 20138901
  76. D Buettner. The blue zones: lessons for living longer from the people who’ve lived the longest.National Geographic Society, 2008.
  77. M DehghanA MenteX ZhangProspective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study investigators. Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study. Lancet2017;390:2050-62. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32252-3 28864332
  78. A PanX LinE HemlerFB Hu. Diet and cardiovascular disease: advances and challenges in population-based studies. Cell Metab2018;27:489-96. 10.1016/j.cmet.2018.02.017 29514062
  79. DD WangY LiSE Chiuve. Association of specific dietary fats with total and cause-specific mortality. JAMA Intern Med2016;176:1134-45. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2417 27379574
  80. MU JakobsenC DethlefsenAM Joensen. Intake of carbohydrates compared with intake of saturated fatty acids and risk of myocardial infarction: importance of the glycemic index. Am J Clin Nutr2010;91:1764-8. 10.3945/ajcn.2009.29099 20375186
  81. NB BuenoIS de MeloSL de OliveiraT da Rocha Ataide. Very-low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet v. low-fat diet for long-term weight loss: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Nutr2013;110:1178-87. 10.1017/S0007114513000548 23651522
  82. JG ManciniKB FilionR AtallahMJ Eisenberg. Systematic review of the Mediterranean diet for long-term weight loss. Am J Med2016;129:407-415.e4. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.11.028. 26721635
  83. N MansoorKJ VinknesMB VeierødK Retterstøl. Effects of low-carbohydrate diets v. low-fat diets on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Nutr2016;115:466-79. 10.1017/S0007114515004699 26768850
  84. J Sackner-BernsteinD KanterS Kaul. Dietary intervention for overweight and obese adults: comparison of low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets. a meta-analysis. PLoS One2015;10:e0139817. 10.1371/journal.pone.0139817 26485706
  85. DK TobiasM ChenJE MansonDS LudwigW WillettFB Hu. Effect of low-fat diet interventions versus other diet interventions on long-term weight change in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol2015;3:968-79. 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00367-8 26527511
  86. CD GardnerJF TrepanowskiLC Del Gobbo. Effect of low-fat vs low-carbohydrate diet on 12-month weight loss in overweight adults and the association with genotype pattern or insulin secretion: the DIETFITS randomized clinical trial. JAMA2018;319:667-79. 10.1001/jama.2018.0245 29466592
  87. JS VolekML FernandezRD FeinmanSD Phinney. Dietary carbohydrate restriction induces a unique metabolic state positively affecting atherogenic dyslipidemia, fatty acid partitioning, and metabolic syndrome. Prog Lipid Res2008;47:307-18. 10.1016/j.plipres.2008.02.003 18396172
  88. AJ BidwellTJ FairchildJ RedmondL WangS KeslacyJA Kanaley. Physical activity offsets the negative effects of a high-fructose diet. Med Sci Sports Exerc2014;46:2091-8. 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000343 24848492
  89. AJ BidwellTJ FairchildL WangS KeslacyJA Kanaley. Effect of increased physical activity on fructose-induced glycemic response in healthy individuals. Eur J Clin Nutr2014;68:1048-54. 10.1038/ejcn.2014.90 24848627
  90. BS LennerzA BartonRK Bernstein. Management of type 1 diabetes with a very low-carbohydrate diet. Pediatrics2018;e20173349 (forthcoming). 10.1542/peds.2017-3349 29735574
  91. RD FeinmanWK PogozelskiA Astrup. Dietary carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management: critical review and evidence base. Nutrition2015;31:1-13. 10.1016/j.nut.2014.06.011 25287761
  92. KC ChiuDS MartinezC YoonLM Chuang. Relative contribution of insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function to plasma glucose and insulin concentrations during the oral glucose tolerance test. Metabolism2002;51:115-20. 10.1053/meta.2002.29027 11782882
  93. JP ChaputA TremblayEB RimmC BouchardDS Ludwig. A novel interaction between dietary composition and insulin secretion: effects on weight gain in the Quebec Family Study. Am J Clin Nutr2008;87:303-9. 10.1093/ajcn/87.2.303 18258618
  94. CB EbbelingMM LeidigHA FeldmanMM LoveskyDS Ludwig. Effects of a low-glycemic load vs low-fat diet in obese young adults: a randomized trial. JAMA2007;297:2092-102. 10.1001/jama.297.19.2092 17507345
  95. DB PawlakJA KushnerDS Ludwig. Effects of dietary glycaemic index on adiposity, glucose homoeostasis, and plasma lipids in animals. Lancet2004;364:778-85. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16937-7 15337404
  96. CM AstleyJN ToddRM Salem. Genetic evidence that carbohydrate-stimulated insulin secretion leads to obesity. Clin Chem2018;64:192-200. 10.1373/clinchem.2017.280727 29295838
  97. FS AtkinsonD HancockP Petocz. Physiological significance of higher amy1 gene copy number on postprandial responses to starchy foods in caucasian adults. Journal of Nutrition & Intermediary Metabolism2014;1:1510.1016/j.jnim.2014.10.044
  98. M FalchiJS El-Sayed MoustafaP Takousis. Low copy number of the salivary amylase gene predisposes to obesity. Nat Genet2014;46:492-7. 10.1038/ng.2939 24686848
  99. G RukhU EricsonJ Andersson-AssarssonM Orho-MelanderE Sonestedt. Dietary starch intake modifies the relation between copy number variation in the salivary amylase gene and BMI. Am J Clin Nutr2017;106:256-62. 10.3945/ajcn.116.149831 28539377
  100. CL UsherRE HandsakerT Esko. Structural forms of the human amylase locus and their relationships to SNPs, haplotypes and obesity. Nat Genet2015;47:921-5. 10.1038/ng.3340 26098870

Journal Information

Article Information

Author Affiliations

MEDICAL DISCLAIMER NOTICE: To the fullest extent permitted by law, the material and information displayed in The BMJ is provided "as is" without any guarantees, conditions or warranties as to accuracy. We rely on our authors of articles, contractors and third party data providers to confirm the accuracy of information and advertisements presented and to describe generally accepted practices and therefore we as the publisher and editors cannot warrant its accuracy. Differences may occur also between the print and online text of articles and advertisements. Readers should be aware that professionals in the field may have different opinions. Because of this fact and also because of regular advances in medical research we strongly recommend that readers independently verify any information that they chose to rely upon. Ultimately it is the reader's responsibility to make their own professional judgements. Opinions posted on Rapid Responses, the Advice Zone, International Experience and any other parts of the sites are those of the individuals posting them and not the views of BMJ.

This article was written by BMJ from The BMJ and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network. Please direct all licensing questions to