Introduction
Increased sugar intake and, more recently, high fructose consumption, especially from high fructose corn syrup, has attracted attention for its potential negative impact on health. Concerns have been raised especially in respect to body weight control and increased risk of diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD) [
1‐
7]. On the other hand, sugars in fruit are viewed in a very different light and the public are recommended to eat more fruit, together with vegetables and wholegrain cereals, as part of general dietary advice in order to maintain health and avoid specific diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer [
8‐
12].
This apparent contradiction in relation to the effect of sugars may be due in part to the fibre and cell wall structure of fruit, which limits the rate of sugar absorption in the gastrointestinal tract resulting in flatter glycaemic responses [
13].Thus, a flatter glycaemic response has been seen after consumption of whole fruit when compared with fruit puree and even more so when compared with drinking fruit juice [
13,
14].
Fruit in general have a glycaemic index (GI) that ranges from 56 to 103 GI units (on the bread scale). We hypothesised that selection of those at the lower end of the range may provide the greatest benefit in reducing the overall glycaemic response. As a result we emphasised the use of low GI fruit in a previously published study examining the role of a low GI diet in type 2 diabetes. This study has now provided us with the opportunity to assess the relation of low GI fruit intake with the metabolic changes observed as part of the overall low GI diet [
15].
Methods
Statistical analyses
The primary outcome was HbA1c, with glucose, total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, TG, blood pressure, body weight and CHD risk as secondary measures. Analyses were undertaken on individuals who completed the study and also provided diet records at the start of and during the study (n = 152).
Baseline data are expressed as means ± SDs. All other data are expressed as means (95% CI). All analyses were carried out using SAS software, version 9.2 [
20].
Pearson correlations as well as partial correlations controlling for body weight change and change in fibre intake were undertaken to determine the relation of low GI fruit to measures of glycaemic control and CHD risk. The data from the two treatments were pooled and both the absolute differences in servings of fruit, and the carbohydrate from fruit expressed as a percentage of the total carbohydrate, were related to the percentage changes from baseline in the outcome measures. Overall 10 year CHD risk was calculated according to the Framingham cardiovascular risk equation [
21]. In our current analyses, only raw and frozen fruit were included. We excluded processed fruit products such as juices, canned fruit and jams as unmodified fruit was the focus of our assessment. Two-sample Student’s
t test was used to assess differences between treatments at baseline and between changes across treatments. Binomial tests of equality were used to assess differences at baseline for categorical variables.
Participants were also divided into four equal groups based on the magnitude of the change they made in low GI fruit intake, expressed as a percentage of daily available carbohydrate from fruit
\( \left[ {\left( {{\hbox{available carbohydrate from fruit }} \div {\hbox{ total available carbohydrate in the diet}}} \right) \times {1}00} \right]. \) The significance of differences between those in the upper quartile of change in low GI fruit intake vs those in the lowest quartile was assessed using an ANOVA model (Proc GLM in SAS version 9.2) [
20], with percentage change in measurements as the response variable.
Finally, to assess the contribution of low GI fruit to the absolute change in HbA1c, as the primary outcome in the context of the other major low GI food components, a regression analysis was undertaken in SAS using an ANOVA model. In this analysis, the assessment of each dietary component was carried out in a model adjusted for change in fibre (g/kJ or kcal) and total fruit intake (% of available carbohydrate). The eight individual low GI dietary components were fruit, bread, breakfast cereals, pasta, beans, parboiled rice, barley and bulgar, each expressed as a percentage of total carbohydrate.
Results
Of the 210 individuals randomised, 155 completed the study [
15] and dietary records for both pretreatment and end of treatment were available for 152 participants. At baseline, individuals taking either high cereal fibre or low GI diets were similar in terms of physical characteristics, ethnicity, smoking status, glycaemic and lipid control and medication use, with the exception of higher sulfonylurea use by the low GI diet group (Table
1).
Discussion
In this secondary analysis of a low GI study, consumption of two additional daily servings of low GI fruit (the difference between the lowest and highest quartiles of intake) was associated with a significant benefit in glycaemic control, blood lipids and blood pressure. The effect of altering the nature of the fruit eaten has not previously been assessed in diabetes to our knowledge, but may have benefits for both micro- and macrovascular disease, the treatment of which is the major therapeutic goal for type 2 diabetes.
Despite dietary advice to the general public to eat more fruit and vegetables and encouraging data from cohort studies indicating less cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease [
12,
22‐
25], the results of the few randomised controlled trials of the impact on cardiovascular disease and cancer have been disappointing [
26‐
29]. However, fruit advice has been general and has not focused on low GI fruit [
26‐
29].
On the other hand, very small increases in fructose intake of 7–10 g (a ‘catalytic’ amount) have been shown to prime glucose metabolism, reducing postprandial glucose concentrations [
30‐
33] and increasing liver glycogen synthesis threefold by increasing flux through glycogen synthase, assessed by magnetic resonance spectroscopy [
34]. At the same time, it has also been demonstrated that low-dose fructose infusion restores the inhibitory effect of hyperglycaemia in reducing net hepatic glucose output in type 2 diabetes, possibly by increasing fructose-1-phosphate. In turn, fructose-1-phosphate displaces glucokinase from its nuclear regulatory protein and allows its translocation to the cell surface to facilitate portal glucose uptake and its retention within hepatocytes [
35]. It may be, therefore, that the increase in low GI fruit, by releasing an additional 6 g or more of fructose from the small intestine into the circulation over an extended period of time, has a disproportionately large effect in reducing postprandial blood glucose excursions.
The situation is very different for large amounts of fructose (17–25% of dietary energy intake) incorporated into sweetened beverages, baked goods and breakfast cereals [
6,
36‐
40]. Early on, high fructose intakes were associated with increased TG levels [
36]. Later studies noted increases in LDL-cholesterol [
6,
37,
38]. Most recently, raised postprandial TG responses have been reported after high fructose consumption, especially in men, together with increased remnant particle concentrations, more visceral fat and impaired carbohydrate tolerance [
6]. These effects of high fructose intake over time would be expected to increase the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. At more modest intake levels, sucrose and fructose intake have not been associated with increased CHD risk [
41‐
43].
Fruits in general are also sources of fibre, minerals, antioxidants and phenolics, which may reduce serum lipids and oxidative damage, lower blood pressure, improve diabetes control and, over time, decrease CHD outcomes. However, definitive roles for all these components remain to be established [
44‐
48]. Furthermore their relevance to the present study is less clear as it was the nature (GI) rather than the quantity of fruit eaten that was altered. On the other hand, cohort studies have assessed the effect of dietary GI on diabetes incidence and CHD [
41‐
43,
49,
50] and significant positive associations have been found in the larger studies [
41,
49,
50]. Nevertheless, the nature of the individual fruit consumed was not reported in these studies [
41‐
43,
49,
50].
A weakness of the present study may be seen as singling out low GI fruit for detailed assessment when low GI fruit consumption was only one of the strategies used to reduce the overall GI of the diet. Nevertheless, in regression analysis involving all eight components of the low GI diet, low GI fruit intake was one of only two independent determinants of change in HbA1c. This association remained even after adjustment for fibre and total fruit intake. In addition, weight loss was also present on both the low GI and high fibre treatments. However, correction for body weight change in a partial regression analysis did not alter the significance of associations previously seen with simple Pearson correlations between low GI fruit intake and HbA1c and calculated CHD risk. Finally, although fruits are of special interest for a number of reasons, including their role as a natural source of fructose in the diet, there has been great difficulty in increasing fruit intake, despite universal advice to the public.
The strengths of the study included the first attempt to define the health benefits of individual fruit in type 2 diabetes, the detailed dietary recording—which has allowed the type of fruit consumed in the diet to be clearly identified and the amounts determined—and the substantial participant numbers, which enabled statistical significance to be established.
In conclusion, the data suggest that selection of low GI fruit is associated with improvement in HbA1c. Such changes may also favourably affect HDL-cholesterol, blood pressure and overall CHD risk. Further studies are required to confirm these findings and determine optimal levels of fruit consumption to maximise glycaemic control.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank S. Casey and P. Yse (Loblaw Companies) for their support of GI research and the study participants for their attention to detail and enthusiasm. No compensation was given. The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Research Chair Endowment of the Federal Government of Canada, Loblaw Companies, and Barilla (Italy). None of the funding organisations or sponsors played any role in: the design and conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review or approval of the manuscript. J. L. Sievenpiper has received travel funding from the Coca-Cola Company; travel funding and honoraria from Archer Daniels Midland and the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) North America; and research support, consultant fees and travel funding from Pulse Canada.