• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of diacareAmerican Diabetes AssociationSubscribeSearchDiabetes Care Journal
Diabetes Care. Feb 2012; 35(2): 434–445.
Published online Jan 16, 2012. doi:  10.2337/dc11-2216
PMCID: PMC3263899

Macronutrients, Food Groups, and Eating Patterns in the Management of Diabetes

A systematic review of the literature, 2010
Madelyn L. Wheeler, MS, RD, FADA, CD,1 Stephanie A. Dunbar, MPH, RD,2 Lindsay M. Jaacks, BS,3 Wahida Karmally, DRPH, RD, CDE, CLS, FNLA,4 Elizabeth J. Mayer-Davis, MSPH, PHD, RD,5 Judith Wylie-Rosett, EDD, RD,6 and William S. Yancy, Jr., MD, MHS7

The effectiveness of medical nutrition therapy (MNT) in the management of diabetes has been well established (1). Previous reviews have provided comprehensive recommendations for MNT in the management of diabetes (2,3). The goals of MNT are to 1) attain and maintain optimal blood glucose levels, a lipid and lipoprotein profile that reduces the risk of macrovascular disease, and blood pressure levels that reduce the risk for vascular disease; 2) prevent and treat the chronic complications of diabetes by modifying nutrient intake and lifestyle; 3) address individual nutrition needs, taking into account personal and cultural preferences and willingness to change; and 4) maintain the pleasure of eating by only limiting food choices when indicated by scientific evidence (4).

The literature on nutrition as it relates to diabetes management is vast. We undertook the specific topic of the role of macronutrients, eating patterns, and individual foods in response to continued controversy over independent contributions of specific foods and macronutrients, independent of weight loss, in the management of diabetes. The position of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) on MNT is that each person with diabetes should receive an individualized eating plan (4). ADA has received numerous criticisms because it does not recommend one specific mix of macronutrients for everyone with diabetes. The previous literature review conducted by ADA in 2001 supported the idea that there was not one ideal macronutrient distribution for all people with diabetes. This review focuses on literature that has been published since that 2001 date (5). This systematic review will be one source of information considered when updating the current ADA Nutrition Position Statement (4). Other systematic reviews and key research studies that may not be included in this review will also be considered.

When attempting to tease out the role of macronutrients from other dietary and lifestyle factors, two critical components of MNT—energy balance and a healthful eating pattern—are not addressed. While both are critical components in the management of diabetes as well as the secondary prevention of complications and promotion of health, these topics are beyond the scope of this particular review. The following questions are addressed in this review:

  1. What aspects of macronutrient quantity and quality impact glycemic control and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in people with diabetes?
  2. How do macronutrients combine in whole foods and eating patterns to affect health in people with diabetes?
  3. Is there an optimal macronutrient ratio for glycemic management and CVD risk reduction in people with diabetes?
  4. What findings and needs should direct future research?

Systematic review procedure

A search of the PubMed database was conducted using the search terms “diabetes” and one of a number of words (low-fat diet, low-carbohydrate diet, Mediterranean diet, Mediterranean eating pattern, vegetarian, vegan, glycemic index (GI), dietary carbohydrates, dietary protein, total fat, dietary fat, saturated fat, omega-3 fatty acid, dietary fiber, meats, legumes, nuts, fruit, vegetables, whole grains, milk) to identify articles published between January 2001 and October 2010. Certain terms relevant to nutrition therapy in the management of diabetes were not included in the search terms. These terms include trans fatty acids, monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), sucrose, and sugars. The literature search was limited to articles published in English, and multiple publications from the same study were limited to the primary study results article.

Studies included in the systematic review were conducted in people already diagnosed with diabetes; conducted in outpatient ambulatory care settings; contained a sample size of 10 or more participants in each study group; and one of the following study designs: clinical trials (controlled and randomized controlled [RCT]), prospective observational studies, cross-sectional observational studies, or case-control studies. Studies were excluded if they were published before January 2001 or after October 2010; were conducted in acute care or inpatient settings, in women with gestational diabetes, children under 2 years of age, or individuals without diabetes or at risk for diabetes; had less than 10 participants in any study group; were studies lasting only 1 or 2 days; or were not in one of the study designs previously listed.

In an effort to expand the research review, studies were not excluded based on retention rates; however, this information is included in Supplementary Table 1 and only studies with a retention rate of >80% are included in the key summary for each topic area. Weight loss is a confounder in some of the studies and is noted in Supplementary Table 1.

Meta-analyses published during the inclusion period of this systematic review were reviewed for studies meeting this systematic review’s criteria. This information can be found in Supplementary Table 1.

An initial PubMed database search found 152 studies after excluding by title and abstract review. An additional 18 studies were found from bibliography review. Of these, 72 studies were excluded for not meeting inclusion criteria. The most common reasons for exclusion were for results not applicable to the research question, not published in a major journal, small sample size, review articles, and duplicates.

Challenges in evaluating macronutrient studies in diabetes management

Isolating the effects of dietary macronutrient composition on glycemic control and CVD risk is difficult due to confounding, especially by weight loss and medication changes. Furthermore, altering the level of one macronutrient affects the proportion of other macronutrients, making it difficult to isolate the true exposure. Additional study design issues include the difficulty blinding study participants, investigators, and clinicians. Finally, the lack of standardized definitions for terms such as “low-fat (or high-fat) diet,” “low-carbohydrate (or high-carbohydrate) diet,” and “low-GI (or high-GI) diet” makes comparisons among study results difficult. These issues were addressed by reporting the entire macronutrient composition of diet approaches and potential confounders when this information was available.

Question 1: What aspects of macronutrient quantity and quality impact glycemic control and CVD risk in people with diabetes?

Carbohydrate amount

There is no consistent definition of “low- (or high-) carbohydrate diets” throughout the literature. Based on the studies in this systematic review, the following definitions are used:

  • very-low-carbohydrate diet: 21–70 g/day of carbohydrate
  • moderately low–carbohydrate diet: 30 to <40% of kcal as carbohydrate
  • moderate-carbohydrate diet: 40–65% of kcal as carbohydrate
  • high-carbohydrate diet: >65% of kcal as carbohydrate

These definitions are not all-inclusive (e.g., a 100-g/day carbohydrate diet may be <30% kcal), but they represent the typical definitions used by authors, and all published articles fit in one of these categories.

Many studies use the term “conventional” or “traditional” macronutrient distribution as a comparison group. Based on studies in this review, these terms refer to an energy contribution from the diet of 55–65% carbohydrate, ≤30% fat, and 10–20% protein. It should be noted that people with diabetes have been shown to consume an eating pattern that is about 45% of calories from carbohydrate (69). The comparison diets referred to as conventional or traditional throughout this review are higher in carbohydrate than those generally consumed by people with diabetes.

Lower (very low and moderately low) carbohydrate

Glycemic control.

Eleven clinical trials examined the effects of lowering total carbohydrate intake on glycemic control in individuals with diabetes. The carbohydrate content goal of the diet was very low in 7 studies (1016) and moderately low in 4 studies (1720).

All studies included adults with type 2 diabetes, duration of follow-up ranged from 14 days to 1 year, and sample sizes ranged from 10 to 55 participants per study group. Designs included two feeding trials (one crossover clinical trial and one RCT) (10,18) and nine outpatient nutrition counseling interventions (two single-arm clinical trials, one crossover RCT, and six parallel RCTs) (1117,19,20). All studies analyzed participants according to treatment assignment, eight studies were randomized (1113,1519), and for six studies, completion of follow-up was 80% or higher (10,12,13,1719).

A1C decreased with a lower-carbohydrate diet in 6 of 10 studies in which it was measured (10,1417,20). Three RCTs found no statistically significant changes in A1C with a very-low-carbohydrate diet (1113) and one found no difference with a moderately low–carbohydrate diet (19). Other glycemic parameters such as fasting blood glucose (FBG), 24-h blood glucose, 24-h insulin (10), and fasting insulin levels (18) decreased significantly, and insulin sensitivity increased significantly (10) on the lower-carbohydrate diet. Glucose-lowering medications were decreased for individuals following the lower-carbohydrate diet (1012,14,17) or were more frequently decreased than in the comparison diet (16).

CVD risk.

Each of the 11 clinical trials reported at least one serum lipoprotein. The most notable results were that HDL cholesterol increased significantly more in one very-low-carbohydrate diet group (16) and two moderately low–carbohydrate diet groups (18,20) compared with the higher-carbohydrate control diet. Also, triglycerides (TGs) decreased more in one moderately low–carbohydrate diet group (20) compared with the higher-carbohydrate control diet. Otherwise, mean changes in serum lipoproteins resulting from a lower-carbohydrate diet were typically beneficial but occurred without a comparison arm or were not statistically greater than the comparison arm.

Summary of lower-carbohydrate research since 2002

In studies reducing total carbohydrate intake, markers of glycemic control and insulin sensitivity improved, but studies were small, of short duration, and in some cases were not randomized or had high dropout rates. Serum lipoproteins typically improved with reduction of total carbohydrate intake but, with the exception of HDL cholesterol, were not statistically greater than with the comparison diet. The contribution of weight loss to the results was not clear in some of these studies.

Moderate or high carbohydrate

Glycemic control.

Seven clinical trials and two meta-analyses examined the effects of moderate- or high-carbohydrate diets on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (2128) or type 1 diabetes (29). Durations of follow-up ranged from 5 to 74 weeks, and sample sizes of participants completing follow-up ranged from 10 to 99. All seven studies were RCTs and analyzed participants according to treatment assignment. Four studies had completion of follow-up of 80% or higher (21,22,25,26). Only one of the studies blinded participants to diet treatment (22), and none blinded the outcome assessors.

Four studies found no significant differences in glycemic control when comparing moderate- or high-carbohydrate diets with conventional diets (2124). One RCT found A1C improved with higher carbohydrate (75% of energy intake) compared with conventional carbohydrate (60–70% of energy intake) (21) in secondary analyses that used the observation immediately prior to a participant dropping out or having a diabetes medication change as the final outcome. The intent-to-treat analyses, however, showed no significant differences between groups. In another study, A1C decreased significantly more during 5 weeks on a 40% carbohydrate/30% protein versus a 55% carbohydrate/15% protein diet (25). A1C was not significantly different compared with a conventional diet in two studies examining a moderate-carbohydrate/higher-protein diet (23,24), two studies examining a moderate-carbohydrate/higher-fat (MUFA) diet (22,26), and one study comparing a 55% carbohydrate/25% fat with a 55% carbohydrate/30% fat diet (29).

Regarding other glycemic parameters, 24-h glucose response was lower with a 40% carbohydrate/30% protein diet compared with a 55% carbohydrate/15% protein diet (25); however, plasma glucose (2224,26), plasma insulin (23,24,26,29), plasma fructosamine (22), and homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) (24) were not significantly different in other diet comparisons.

Two meta-analyses compared lower-carbohydrate diets with conventional carbohydrate diets (27,28). Of the 19 studies reviewed in the article by Kodama et al. (27), only three (18,26,30) were published during the date range for this review, and of the 13 studies in the meta-analysis by Kirk et al. (28), only four (10,14,22,25) were published during the review time period. The seven studies are included in this review.

CVD risk.

Six of the seven interventions reviewed above reported lipoproteins. Two (25,26) reported significant reductions in TGs on a 40% carbohydrate diet (vs. 50–55% carbohydrate), whereas one (21) observed a significant reduction in LDL cholesterol on a 75% carbohydrate diet (vs. 60–70% carbohydrate). Three studies (2224) found no significant differences between comparison diets.

Summary of moderate- and high-carbohydrate research since 2002

RCTs presenting information on moderate- and high-carbohydrate diets are diverse in terms of fat and protein content as well as length of study. Only two RCTs found significant differences in A1C between groups, with one study finding significantly lower A1C with the higher-carbohydrate diet only in a subgroup analysis, and the other study finding significantly lower A1C with the lower-carbohydrate diet. In terms of CVD risk factors, LDL cholesterol improved more with a high-carbohydrate diet in one study, whereas two studies found TGs improved more with a lower-carbohydrate diet.

Carbohydrate type

Studies in this systematic review addressing the type of carbohydrate were those of GI/glycemic load or dietary fiber.

GI

For studies in this review that provided the GI that subjects were able to achieve (end-of-study GI numbers), there was no agreement as to the definition of “low GI” (range 39–77) or “high GI” (range 56–84). The meta-analyses (almost all studies used were published before 2001) found that the average low GI was 65, and the average high GI was 82, but both had wide ranges. This is further complicated by the two bases (glucose or white bread) that have been used to determine GI values for individual foods.

Glycemic control.

Five RCTs (19,3134) compared lower-GI diets with higher-GI diets in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Duration of follow-up ranged from 4 to 6 weeks and sample sizes were small in four studies (12–14 in three of the studies, 45 in the other), whereas the fifth study lasted for 1 year and included 156 subjects in the analysis (19). Completion rates were ≥80% except for 39% in one study (33). Results were mixed with two studies finding A1C was significantly reduced with the lower-GI versus higher-GI diets (32,33) and the others finding no differences in glycemic measures (19,31,34).

Three parallel RCTs (16,35,36) compared a lower-GI diet with diets other than those designated as higher GI (high-fiber diet, traditional diet, very-low-carbohydrate diet) in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Duration of follow-up was 6–12 months, retention rates were <80% in two of the studies (16,35), and sample sizes were moderate (range 40–155). Compared with a higher-fiber diet, the lower-GI diet decreased A1C and FBG significantly (35). When the lower-GI weight-loss diet was compared with a conventional weight-loss diet (36), both groups lowered A1C significantly with no significant differences between groups. The lower-GI diet reduced A1C significantly less than the very-low-carbohydrate diet (16).

A study in youth with type 1 diabetes (37) found that individuals advised to follow a lower-GI diet had significant reductions in A1C compared with individuals advised to follow a carbohydrate-exchange diet, despite the fact that the mean GI for the two diet groups was not significantly different. Two studies indicated that education can change food selection and may (38) or may not (39) affect the GI of the diet.

Three meta-analyses (4042) evaluated GI. Anderson et al. (41) included no studies meeting this review’s criteria; Brand-Miller et al. (40) included one (37); and Thomas and Elliott (42) included three (32,33,37). These three studies from the meta-analyses are included above (32,33,37).

CVD risk.

Mixed results were found for the five RCTs comparing low-GI with high-GI diets for lipoprotein measures. Two studies found a significant reduction in total cholesterol (31,32) with one of the two reporting a significant reduction in LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein (apoB) (32) for the lower-GI diet. The other three studies found no significant changes between groups (19,33,34).

Results were mixed in studies comparing lower GI with other dietary approaches. Significantly increased HDL cholesterol was found with lower GI versus higher-cereal fiber but no significant differences in other measured CVD risk markers (35). Total cholesterol was significantly lowered with both a lower-GI diet and a traditional diet without significant differences between groups; however, LDL cholesterol was significantly higher with the lower-GI diet versus the traditional diet (36). A very-low-carbohydrate diet reduced TGs significantly and increased HDL cholesterol significantly compared with a lower-GI, reduced-calorie diet, with no significant differences in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol (16).

A cross-sectional study (43) of men with type 2 diabetes described a statistically significant trend toward decreasing adiponectin with increasing quintiles of GI.

Summary of GI research since 2002

In general, there is little difference in glycemic control and CVD risk factors between low-GI and high-GI or other diets. A slight improvement in glycemia may result from a lower-GI diet; however, confounding by higher fiber (16,33,35) must be accounted for in some of these studies. Furthermore, standardized definitions of low GI need to be developed and low retention rates on lower-GI diets must be addressed (16,33,35).

Dietary fiber

The Institute of Medicine defines dietary fiber as consisting of nondigestible (not digested in the human small intestine) carbohydrates and lignin that are intrinsic and intact in plants (44). Quantification of the dietary fiber in research studies may be on the basis of dietary recommendations, grams per 1,000 kcals, the amount added, or its distribution within the study population. Functional fibers are beyond the scope of this systematic review, and thus functional fiber and total fiber were not included in this review.

Glycemic control.

Seven RCTs examined the effects of moderate amounts of fiber supplements (4–19 g/day) on glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes (4551). Durations of follow-up ranged from 4 to 12 weeks, and sample sizes were small (12–60 participants in the fiber intervention). All studies were randomized; all studies analyzed participants according to treatment assignment; completion of follow-up was >80% for two of the studies (46,51); two of the studies blinded participants to diet treatment (48,51); and two were double-blinded (45,46). In general, these studies support the idea that fiber supplements may improve postprandial glycemia; however, little improvement in A1C was observed.

Two dietary counseling RCTs examined the effects of dietary fiber as part of an intervention diet. In the first study, individuals on the low-GI diet showed small but significant improvements in A1C (after controlling for weight loss, fiber, or carbohydrate) and FBG at 6 months compared with those on the high–cereal fiber diet (35). In the second study, individuals on a moderate-carbohydrate (51%), high-fiber (27 g/1,000 kcals), lower-GI, moderate-fat diet had significant decreases in postprandial glucose variability after 4 weeks compared with a lower-carbohydrate (44%), lower-fiber (8 g/1,000 kcal), higher-GI, higher-MUFA diet (52).

Markers of improved insulin sensitivity (adiponectin) or inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP], tumor necrosis factor-R2 [TNF-R2]) were assessed in three cross-sectional reports (43,53,54). Higher cereal or fruit fiber intakes were associated with higher levels of adiponectin (43,53,54) and lower levels of CRP (53,54) or TNF-R2 (53,54). Another cross-sectional study (55), using a 3-day weighed diet, found that individuals with type 2 diabetes and the metabolic syndrome had significantly lower intakes of total dietary fiber (specifically whole grains and fruits) than those with diabetes but without the metabolic syndrome; however, there were no associations between fiber intake and A1C or FBG in either group.

The time period of the meta-analysis by Anderson et al. (41) is before any of the articles in this systematic review were published, therefore the meta-analysis results are not included here.

CVD risk.

All RCTs described above assessed lipoproteins (35,4552). Four studies found no significant difference between intervention and control groups for these measures (46,4850). One study found that psyllium (vs. cellulose) supplements (45) significantly improved HDL cholesterol; a second study found that a higher-fiber, lower-fat, and lower-GI diet versus a lower-fiber, higher-fat diet produced significantly lower total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol (52). In addition, one cross-sectional study found that a diet higher in soluble fiber from whole grains was associated with a lower TG level (55). In contrast, Jenkins et al. (35) found that the lower-GI, high–cereal fiber diet increased HDL cholesterol significantly versus the higher-GI diet, and Ble-Castillo (51) found that native banana starch increased TGs, whereas soy milk decreased TGs.

The Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) found lower CVD-specific mortality in women with diabetes associated with bran intake after adjustments for lifestyle and dietary factors (56).

Summary of fiber research since 2002

The majority of the reviewed evidence indicates that adding fiber supplements in moderate amounts (4–19 g) to a daily diet leads to little improvement in glycemia and CVD risk markers.

Fat amount

Glycemic management

Eight clinical trials examined low-fat eating patterns (2123,29,5760). One trial studied adults with type 1 diabetes (29), whereas the rest studied adults with type 2 diabetes; duration of follow-up ranged from 3 days to 74 weeks, and sample sizes of participants completing follow-up ranged from 10 to 48 participants per study group. All eight trials were outpatient nutrition counseling interventions: one single-arm (57), two crossover RCTs (22,29), and five parallel RCTs. Four trials reduced total fat intake to <25% of daily energy intake (2123,57), and for the rest, fat intake was 25–30%. All studies analyzed participants according to treatment assignment, and completion of follow-up was ≥80% except in three studies (29,59,60).

A1C decreased with a low-fat diet in one of seven studies in which it was measured (58). In that study (58), intensive dietary advice for a lower-fat, moderate-carbohydrate, higher-fiber diet in adults with poor glycemic control significantly decreased A1C compared with the control group. Insulin sensitivity by euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp improved in the lower-fat diet compared with the conventional diet in one study (29).

Two weight-loss RCTs by the same group compared meal replacements versus conventional diets (59,60) and found significant reductions in FBG over short durations with meal replacements. One study carried out for 12 months showed no persistent difference in FBG between groups, although significantly more subjects in the meal replacement group had reductions in diabetic medications (60).

In addition to the information from the clinical trials, a cross-sectional study (61) found that higher-fat intake correlated with significantly higher A1C.

CVD risk.

Of the seven studies that measured CVD risk factors, only one had significant findings. In a small single-arm study (57) comparing 3 days on a low-fat, fiber-rich diet with study participants’ baseline higher-fat diet, both total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol decreased significantly.

The cross-sectional study (61) found that higher-fat intake correlated with higher levels of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol as well as coronary artery calcium.

Summary of low-fat research since 2002

Lowering total fat intake infrequently improved glycemic control or CVD risk factors in clinical trials involving individuals with diabetes. Lowering fat intake in individuals with diabetes may improve total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol but may also lower HDL cholesterol.

Fat type

For this review, the type of fat refers to the proportion of total energy from a specific fatty acid or fatty acid category. Categorization may be on the basis of the number of, the location of, or the configuration of double bonds. Saturated fatty acids (SFAs) may be assessed based on distribution within the study population or recommended dietary levels. Omega-3 fatty acids are usually evaluated as milligrams per day or as a distribution within the population rather than on the basis of percent of energy intake.

Saturated fatty acids

Glycemic control.

One RCT in individuals with type 2 diabetes compared glycemic control outcomes for SFAs versus MUFAs with the total fat remaining equal (62) and did not find a significant difference between diets for postprandial glucose or insulin response.

CVD risk.

A 3-week study (62) reported no improvement in postprandial lipid tolerance except for a small but significant reduction in small VLDL TGs when subjects consumed a low SFA diet (8% kcal compared with 17% as SFA).

Summary of SFAs research since 2002

The results from the one study relevant to this topic indicate that the type/amount of fatty acid does not affect postprandial glycemic control so long as the amount of total fat is equivalent. An intriguing idea for future research is that lowering SFA or increasing MUFA may increase glucagon-like peptide-1 activity, thereby reducing postprandial TG.

Omega-3 fatty acids

Glycemic control.

Three blinded RCTs in individuals with type 2 diabetes (6365) found that omega-3 fatty acid supplements may increase FBG by a small but significant amount. However, a fourth blinded RCT (66) observed a significant decrease in A1C with supplementation compared with controls. In the meta-analysis by Hartweg et al. (67), six studies met this systematic review criterion (6365,6870) and are included in this section.

CVD risk.

Three RCTs using omega-3 fatty acid supplements (4 g/day eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] or docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) (64), 2.6 g/day EPA plus DHA (65), or 4 g/day fish oil (68) versus controls of corn or olive oil observed an increase in HDL cholesterol, particularly the HDL-2 and HDL-2b fractions. One of these studies (64) also found a decrease in the HDL-3 fraction with EPA supplementation. Most studies (64,65,6870) observed significant decreases in TGs with EPA, fish oil, or EPA/DHA combination; however, one (64) showed an increase in TGs with supplementation of DHA alone. A one-armed clinical trial (71) also found a significant increase in HDL cholesterol and a significant decrease in TGs with an EPA/DHA combination.

One study (73) focused on whole-food omega-3 intake in a prospective cohort and found that baseline marine omega-3 fatty acid intake was inversely associated with TG.

Summary of omega-3 fatty acids research since 2002

Overall it appears that supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids does not improve glycemic control but may have beneficial effects on CVD risk biomarkers among individuals with type 2 diabetes by reducing TGs (in some but not all studies). Other benefits (e.g., increasing HDL cholesterol or decreasing LDL cholesterol) are not clearly defined.

Protein

This section reviews studies examining the effects of varying the amount of daily protein intake or the source of protein intake and further distinguishes those studies that included individuals with diabetic kidney disease (DKD).

Amount of protein, individuals without DKD

One metabolic unit-type crossover RCT (25) and two parallel dietary consultation RCTs (23,74) examined the effects of higher protein versus usual protein intake (30% vs. 15% of calories as protein with fat remaining constant at 25–30%) on glycemic control and CVD risk in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Durations of follow-up ranged from 4 to 16 weeks, and sample sizes were small (range 12–29 participants in the higher-protein intervention). All studies analyzed participants according to treatment assignment, completion of follow-up was >80%, and no studies were blinded.

A 5-week weight-maintenance study (25) observed a significant reduction in A1C and 24-h glucose response and significantly lower fasting TGs on the higher- versus lower-protein eating patterns. A study of 8 weeks of weight loss followed by 4 weeks of weight maintenance (74) found no significant differences between higher- and lower-protein groups for A1C; however, significant decreases in serum total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol were observed on the higher- versus lower-protein diets. Another study (23) and a 1-year follow-up of the Parker and colleagues study (24) reported no significant differences between groups in glycemic control or CVD risk factors.

Amount of protein, individuals with DKD

Four parallel RCTs examined the effects of lower versus usual protein intake on glycemic control, CVD risk factors, and renal function markers in individuals with types 1 and 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria (75), macroalbuminuria (76,77), or both (78). Durations of follow-up ranged from 1 to 4 years, sample sizes were small (23–47 participants in the intervention groups), and retention rates were >80% in two studies (76,77). One study blinded physicians to diet treatment (75). Two studies achieved lower protein intakes of 0.86–0.89 g protein/kg/day versus usual protein intakes (1.02–1.24) (76,77), whereas in the other two studies, the lower-protein group had higher actual protein intakes versus the control groups (75,78). None of the studies found significant differences between groups for glycemia, CVD risk factors, or renal function (glomerular filtration rate [GFR], various measures of proteinuria). At the levels of protein achieved, no reduction in serum albumin was noted.

Two meta-analyses addressed protein restriction in people with diabetes and micro- and macroalbuminuria. The meta-analysis by Pan et al. (79) included four studies meeting this review’s criteria (7578), and the Cochrane analysis by Robertson et al. (80) included three studies (7577). These four studies (7578) are included above.

Source of protein, individuals with DKD

Four RCTs examined the effects of source of protein intake on glycemic control, CVD risk factors, and renal function in individuals with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria (81) or macroalbuminuria (8284). Durations of follow-up ranged from 4 weeks to 4 years, and sample sizes were small (14–20 participants in the designated source interventions). Two studies had completion rates of >80% (81,83).

The nutrition source focus for two RCTs was soy. HDL cholesterol increased significantly and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio decreased significantly with soy powder versus casein powder supplementation (82). The 4-year RCT reported that the replacement of 35% of animal protein with textured soy protein resulted in significant improvements in FBG and total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and TGs, but no significant changes in kidney function versus control (83). In two crossover RCTs from the same author group (81,84), the dark chicken meat group significantly improved total cholesterol, TGs, and urinary albumin excretion rate, and the low-protein/vegetables group significantly improved total cholesterol and GFR versus the red meat control group.

Summary of amount and source of protein research since 2002

For individuals without DKD, higher protein eating patterns (30% of calories) may or may not improve A1C; however, they appear to improve one or more CVD risk measures.

For individuals with DKD and either micro- or macroalbuminuria, reducing the amount of protein from normal levels does not appear to alter glycemic measures, CVD risk measures, or the course of GFR. For individuals with DKD and macroalbuminuria, changing the source of protein to be more soy based may improve CVD risk measures but does not appear to alter proteinuria.

Question 2A: How do macronutrients combine in food groups to affect glycemic response and CVD risk reduction in people with diabetes?

Nuts

The high MUFA content of most tree nuts and peanuts and high PUFA content of walnuts and pine nuts lends support to the investigation of potential effects of nuts on glycemic control and CVD risk in individuals with diabetes. Since 2002, three RCTs and two reports from the NHS have been published on this topic (30,8589). All studies analyzed participants according to treatment assignment, and two studies blinded participants to treatment. Completion of follow-up was greater than 85% for all studies, and two of the three studies controlled for weight change.

Glycemic control.

Two RCTs (8587) tested the effects of walnuts against general advice or advice to consume specific PUFA-rich foods. There were no significant differences among groups for glycemic control. One double-blinded study compared 10% of total calories from fat of almonds or olive/canola oil in the context of either a high-fat (37%) or low-fat (25%) diet and also did not find significant differences in glycemic control (30).

CVD risk

Results relating to measures of CVD risk were mixed. Addition of walnuts led to no significant differences in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol; however, improved endothelial function was observed (85). In another study (86), the walnut group achieved significant reductions in LDL cholesterol and increases in HDL cholesterol and the ratio of HDL-to-total cholesterol relative to the other treatment groups. However, a third study (30) found that HDL cholesterol was significantly lower in the group receiving almonds (vs. olive/canola oil). These authors concluded that total dietary fat had a greater effect on serum lipids than did fat source (30).

Two cross-sectional studies reported associations between nut consumption and lower-risk CVD risk markers. Nuts, as a part of the Mediterranean-style eating pattern, had an independent effect on adiponectin levels, which were 12% higher in the highest nut intake quintile versus the lowest (88). Consumption of at least five servings per week of nuts or peanut butter was significantly associated with a more favorable lipid profile (lower total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and apoB-100). There were no significant associations for inflammatory markers (89).

Summary of nuts research since 2002

Nut-enriched diets do not alter glycemia in individuals with diabetes. The evidence is mixed as to whether they have beneficial effects on serum lipoproteins.

Whole grains

The 2010 “Dietary Guidelines for Americans” (90) defines whole grains as foods containing the entire grain seed (kernel, bran, germ, and endosperm).

Two single-blinded crossover RCTs compared whole grains to fiber (47,48) in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Duration of follow-up was 5–12 weeks, sample sizes were small (15–20 adults), and retention rates were 74% or not reported (47). Whole-wheat flour products did not change glycemic measures over 5 weeks, while adding fiber (arabinoxylan) to whole-wheat flour products resulted in significantly lower postprandial glucose, insulin, and fructosamine (47). In the second RCT, A1C and FBG were not altered significantly over 12 weeks with Salba (a novel whole grain) or wheat bran (48). Neither study found significant differences in CVD risk markers.

Two cross-sectional analyses from the NHS found that higher intake of whole grains was associated with lower levels of markers of inflammation (CRP and TNF-R2) (54) and with higher adiponectin concentrations (88). One of the RCTs also found CRP was significantly lower in the whole grain versus the wheat bran groups (48).

Summary of whole-grains research since 2002

Whole-grain consumption does not appear to be associated with improved glycemic control in individuals with diabetes. However, diets high in whole grains may reduce systemic inflammation.

Legumes

Soybean-based supplements

Two crossover and four parallel RCTs (50,60,9195) investigated the effects of soy-based supplements on individuals with type 2 diabetes. One of the above RCTs reported glycemic and CVD information in separate publications (91,92). Durations of follow-up ranged from 6 weeks to 1 year, retention rates were >80% for four (9195) of the six studies, sample sizes were small (15–38 in the intervention group), and four of the studies were double-blinded (9195). Five of the six studies found no significant difference in glycemic measures between groups (92,93) (50,94) (60); however, two studies observed improvements in LDL cholesterol (91,93) or total cholesterol (93) versus control. A diet-counseling, randomized crossover trial (52) found that legumes as part of a moderately high–carbohydrate, high-fiber, and lower-GI diet improved postprandial glucose and CVD risk factors compared with a higher-MUFA diet.

Isolated soy proteins that included isoflavones

Three crossover RCTs compared soy protein for effects on glycemic and CVD risk markers in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes (9698). Duration of follow-up ranged from 4 to 12 weeks, sample sizes were small (16–32), and all studies were double-blinded. Two studies found no significant differences between groups in glycemic control measures or lipoproteins (97,98), and one of these found no difference in CRP or HOMA-insulin resistance (IR) (97). However, the third (96) showed significant reductions in A1C, fasting insulin, HOMA-IR, total cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol in the soy group compared with the control group.

Summary of legumes research since 2002

While the soy-derived supplements in the studies were quite different, most studies did not indicate a significant reduction in glycemic measures or CVD risk factors compared with controls.

Vegetables and fruit

One small short-term RCT addressed vegetable supplements in individuals with type 2 diabetes. At four weeks, garlic powder tablets significantly improved FBG, fructosamine, and TGs (99). Higher-fiber vegetables as part of a moderately high–carbohydrate, high-fiber, and lower-GI diet improved postprandial glucose and CVD risk factors compared with a higher-MUFA diet (52). In women with type 2 diabetes, vegetables and fruit (as a component of the Mediterranean-style eating pattern score) were not associated with adiponectin concentrations (88).

Summary of vegetable and fruit research since 2002

Eating pattern research has not directly addressed the role of vegetables and fruits in people with diabetes. Of the few studies found since 2002, results are mixed.

Dairy

Five RCTs (two crossover and three parallel feeding trials) examined the effects of dairy supplements on glycemic control and CVD risk factors (one RCT reported glycemic and CVD information in separate publications) (91,92). Three studies included adults with type 2 diabetes and one included youths with type 1 diabetes (100). Duration of follow-up ranged from 6 to 52 weeks, and sample sizes ranged from 11 to 59 participants per study group. All studies were randomized, analyzed participants according to treatment assignment, completion of follow-up was >80%, and three were double-blinded (9194).

One RCT (100) found that adding camel’s milk to the usual diets of youth newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes significantly reduced A1C and mean dose of insulin compared with usual diets alone.

Three RCTs comparing soy to dairy (9194) found no significant differences between groups in glycemic control. However, two of the studies (91,93) did find LDL cholesterol to be significantly higher for the milk protein isolate (91) and casein (93) groups (vs. the soy groups).

An ancillary report of a weight-loss study (101) found that there was no relationship between dairy calcium and glycemic control or CVD risk markers.

Summary of dairy research since 2002

None of the components of dairy appear to have an effect on glycemic control or CVD risk reduction.

Meats, poultry, and fish

In two crossover RCTs from the same research group (81,84), a usual diet with dark chicken meat replacing red meat was compared with a low-protein/vegetable diet. There were no significant differences among groups for FBG, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol. Total cholesterol was significantly lower after the chicken and the vegetable protein diet versus the red meat diet, and TGs were significantly lower after the chicken diet versus the red meat diet and the vegetable protein diet. In women with type 2 diabetes in the NHS (102), a high intake of red meat was significantly associated with fatal coronary heart disease, coronary revascularization, and total coronary heart disease. A case-control study (103) indicated that a high intake of fish protein was associated with a decreased risk of micro/macroalbuminuria in youth with type 1 diabetes.

Summary of meat research since 2002

Currently, there is limited evidence to provide conclusive statements relating to the intake of meat, poultry, and fish.

Overall summary of Question 2A

Research involving diabetes and food groups is sparse and does not indicate an advantage for specific foods in improving glycemic control. There is a possibility that certain CVD risk factors could be improved with the consumption of nuts or whey.

Question 2B: How do macronutrients combine in eating patterns to affect glycemic response and CVD risk factors in people with diabetes?

Eating patterns include—but are not limited to—lower carbohydrate, lower fat, lower GI (see the respective sections in Question 1) as well as Mediterranean and vegetarian.

Mediterranean-style eating pattern

A Mediterranean-style eating pattern, based on the reviewed studies, generally includes more vegetables, whole grains, fruit, legumes, nuts, fish, and MUFA/PUFA; less red meat and SFAs; and some alcohol (wine) compared with a traditional diet.

Summary of reviewed studies

Five RCTs (52,104107) compared a Mediterranean or modified Mediterranean-style eating pattern to other eating patterns over a period of 4 weeks to 4 years.

A 4-year study (104) compared a weight-reduction/maintenance Mediterranean-style eating pattern to a lower-fat eating pattern. Weight loss was similar, and there were no significant differences in glycemic control between groups. Adiponectin increased similarly with both eating patterns.

De Natale et al. (52) found that a moderately high–carbohydrate, high-fiber, and lower-GI Mediterranean-style eating pattern significantly improved postprandial glucose compared with a higher-MUFA Mediterranean-style eating pattern.

Three RCTs comparing Greek traditional or fast foods found no significant differences between groups for glycemic control and CVD risk factors (105107).

A cross-sectional study (88) and a case-control study (108) examined the Mediterranean-style eating pattern to address how adherence was related to selected biomarkers. There were no significant differences between adherence tertiles for A1C (88,108), total cholesterol (88,108), or LDL cholesterol (88). HDL cholesterol was significantly higher and TG was significantly lower in the highest tertile of adherence to the Mediterranean-style eating pattern (88); the highest tertile of adherence also was associated with a 56% reduction in risk of peripheral arterial disease (108). The NHS (88) found that adherence to the Mediterranean-style eating pattern was associated with higher plasma adiponectin concentrations in women with diabetes, and this was attributed mainly to the intake of alcohol, nuts, and whole grains.

An RCT (109) compared 4 oz. of red wine daily to no alcohol. Fasting insulin and HOMA decreased in both groups, with the wine group having a significantly greater decrease. Both groups significantly reduced total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol with no change in TG. HDL cholesterol was significantly increased in the wine group only, whereas markers of inflammation (TNF, CRP, and others) were significantly increased in the control group.

Summary of Mediterranean-style eating pattern research since 2002

There appears to be no advantage in using the Mediterranean-style eating pattern compared with other eating patterns for glycemic control. There are mixed results for CVD risk factors with some studies indicating that the Mediterranean-style eating pattern might improve HDL cholesterol and TG. Individual components of the Mediterranean-style eating pattern (wine, high MUFA/olive oil) do not appear to have independent effects on glycemic control, but may be responsible for improvement in HDL cholesterol.

Vegetarian eating pattern

One RCT (21,110) comparing a low-fat vegan eating pattern and a conventional eating pattern found that weight and A1C decreased in both groups, with no significant difference between groups in the primary analyses. In an ancillary analysis that removed participants who did not complete follow-up or who had medications changed during follow-up, there was a significantly greater decrease in A1C and LDL cholesterol in the vegan group. In a 4-week crossover RCT in individuals with early DKD, a lacto-vegetarian eating pattern did not show significant differences in FBG, HDL cholesterol, or LDL cholesterol; however, total cholesterol significantly decreased compared with the usual eating pattern, and GFR significantly decreased compared with both the usual and chicken diets (81,84).

Summary of vegetarian eating pattern research since 2002

Research is limited regarding vegetarian eating patterns. Because of methodological problems, more research is needed before conclusive remarks can be made about the associations between a vegetarian eating pattern and glycemic control and CVD risk factors.

Overall summary of Question 2B

Studies examining how eating patterns are related to glycemic control and CVD risk markers have varied with respect to macronutrient distribution used to characterize low-fat, Mediterranean, low-GI, vegetarian, and lower-carbohydrate eating patterns. While some research suggests that these eating patterns improve glycemic and cardiovascular outcomes, variability in research methods and definitions have complicated interpretation of findings. Issues that could affect conclusions include retention rates, dietary intervention and assessment methodology, and data analysis approaches.

Question 3: Is there an optimal macronutrient ratio for glycemic management and cardiovascular risk reduction in people with diabetes?

Variability in study methodology, including measurement of dietary intake, retention rates, and confounding by weight loss, limits comparisons as to how macronutrient distribution independent of weight loss affects outcomes of interest. Although in many instances there were not statistically significant differences between dietary approaches, improvements were often seen from baseline to follow-up in both intervention groups supporting the idea that several different macronutrient distributions may lead to improvements in glycemic and/or CVD risk factors (Supplementary Table 1).

Question 4: What should guide the future directions of research?

The evidence presented in this review suggests that many different approaches to MNT and eating patterns are effective for the target outcomes of improved glycemic control and reduced CVD risk among individuals with diabetes. However, several gaps in the literature remain that warrant mentioning here.

Most of the studies in the present review examined the relationship of macronutrients and foods to biochemical markers of glycemic control and CVD risk. While research has long explored the mechanisms underlying the relationship between nutrition and glycemia, studies have only just begun examining how nutrition relates to the endocrine functions of fat tissue and other cardiovascular parameters. For example, future studies should address:

  • The role of adiponectin, which may be responsive to changes in eating patterns and has been associated with better diabetes-related health outcomes in epidemiological studies
  • The relationship between fiber/whole-grain intake and improved insulin sensitivity and markers of inflammation (e.g., CRP and TNF)
  • The role of omega-3 fatty acids in relation to adipose tissue inflammation, thrombosis, and lipid metabolism in the context of observations that higher intakes are associated with reduced CVD mortality, particularly sudden cardiac death
  • The impact of very-low-carbohydrate and moderately low–carbohydrate eating patterns on long-term complications such as nephropathy
  • The impact of postprandial excursions and hyperglycemia on inflammatory response and subsequent CVD risk

In addition to these biochemical mechanisms underlying nutrition-related CVD risk, the interplay between specific nutrients and dietary macronutrient composition has yet to be thoroughly evaluated. The use of technology such as continuous glucose monitors to evaluate the impact of macronutrients in isolation, in the presence of specific nutrients, in the context of a mixed meal, and in overall eating patterns must be elucidated in order to fully understand how diet impacts glycemic control.

Moving forward, it is essential to consider that individuals benefit differently from various nutritional approaches. Studies on gene-diet interactions and the impact of various macronutrient compositions across the continuum of dysglycemia/insulin resistance warrant additional investigation. Related to this tailored approach to MNT, it should be noted that individual adherence to nutrition recommendations is highly variable—and generally suboptimal. Research is needed to develop strategies that enhance adherence and to determine if certain nutritional approaches promote greater adherence than others.

Continued support is needed for large, multicenter trials with clinical event end points. Diabetes care involves monitoring risk factors for both macrovascular and microvascular complications and therefore the sample size needed to detect multiple biologically and clinically relevant effect sizes requires special consideration. Furthermore, the duration of follow-up needs to be adequate relative to the outcomes of interest, and strategies should be used to improve retention. When dropout and/or missing data are extensive, special analytic strategies may be necessary to reduce the potential for selection bias. Study design and statistical analyses should consider time-varying factors, such as changes in weight and medications, which may independently impact study outcomes, especially in small-scale efficacy trials. Finally, due to the large volume and variety of research regarding diet and diabetes-related health outcomes, rigorous systematic reviews and meta-analyses need to be conducted so that researchers, clinicians, patients, and funding agencies are aware of the most recent research and the direction in which it is heading.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Data:

Acknowledgments

W.K. has reported being a member of the Research Committee for the American Pistachio Growers. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

M.L.W. researched data, contributed to discussion, and wrote, reviewed, and edited the manuscript. S.A.D. contributed to discussion and wrote, reviewed, and edited the manuscript. L.M.J. reviewed and edited the manuscript. W.K. researched data, contributed to discussion, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. E.J.M.-D. reviewed and edited the manuscript. J.W.-R. researched data, contributed to discussion, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. W.S.Y. researched data, contributed to discussion, and wrote, reviewed, and edited the manuscript.

The authors thank M. Sue Kirkman, MD, for her input into the manuscript and the former University of North Carolina students for conducting the initial literature search: Emily Ford, MPH, RD; Natalie Peterson, MPH, RD; Cassandra Rico, MPH, RD; Carolyn Wait, MPH, RD; and John Yoon, BS.

Footnotes

This article contains Supplementary Data online at http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2337/dc11-2216/-/DC1.

References

1. Franz MJ, Boucher JL, Green-Pastors J, Powers MA. Evidence-based nutrition practice guidelines for diabetes and scope and standards of practice. J Am Diet Assoc 2008;108(Suppl. 1):S52–S58 [PubMed]
2. American Dietetic Association. Diabetes type 1 and 2 evidence-based nutrition practice guidelines for adults [article online], 2008. Chicago, IL. Available from http://www.adaevidencelibrary.com/topic.cfm?=3252 Accessed 10 November 2011
3. Franz MJ, Powers MA, Leontos C, et al. The evidence for medical nutrition therapy for type 1 and type 2 diabetes in adults. J Am Diet Assoc 2010;110:1852–1889 [PubMed]
4. Bantle JP, Wylie-Rosett J, Albright AL, et al. ; American Diabetes Association Nutrition recommendations and interventions for diabetes: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 2008;31(Suppl. 1):S61–S78 [PubMed]
5. Franz MJ, Bantle JP, Beebe CA, et al. Evidence-based nutrition principles and recommendations for the treatment and prevention of diabetes and related complications. Diabetes Care 2002;25:148–198 [PubMed]
6. Delahanty LM, Nathan DM, Lachin JM, et al. ; Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Association of diet with glycated hemoglobin during intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89:518–524 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
7. Eeley EA, Stratton IM, Hadden DR, Turner RC, Holman RR.; UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group UKPDS 18: estimated dietary intake in type 2 diabetic patients randomly allocated to diet, sulphonylurea or insulin therapy. Diabet Med 1996;13:656–662 [PubMed]
8. Vitolins MZ, Anderson AM, Delahanty L, et al. ; Look AHEAD Research Group Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) trial: baseline evaluation of selected nutrients and food group intake. J Am Diet Assoc 2009;109:1367–1375 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. Oza-Frank R, Cheng YJ, Narayan KM, Gregg EW. Trends in nutrient intake among adults with diabetes in the United States: 1988-2004. J Am Diet Assoc 2009;109:1173–1178 [PubMed]
10. Boden G, Sargrad K, Homko C, Mozzoli M, Stein TP. 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;142:403–411 [PubMed]
11. Daly ME, Paisey R, Paisey R, et al. Short-term effects of severe dietary carbohydrate-restriction advice in type 2 diabetes—a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med 2006;23:15–20 [PubMed]
12. Davis NJ, Tomuta N, Schechter C, et al. Comparative study of the effects of a 1-year dietary intervention of a low-carbohydrate diet versus a low-fat diet on weight and glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1147–1152 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. Dyson PA, Beatty S, Matthews DR. A low-carbohydrate diet is more effective in reducing body weight than healthy eating in both diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. Diabet Med 2007;24:1430–1435 [PubMed]
14. Yancy WS, Jr, Foy M, Chalecki AM, Vernon MC, Westman EC. A low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet to treat type 2 diabetes. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2005;2:34. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. 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;140:778–785 [PubMed]
16. Westman EC, Yancy WS, Jr, Mavropoulos JC, Marquart M, McDuffie JR. The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2008;5:36. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
17. Haimoto H, Sasakabe T, Wakai K, Umegaki H. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on glycemic control in outpatients with severe type 2 diabetes. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2009;6:21. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
18. Miyashita Y, Koide N, Ohtsuka M, et al. Beneficial effect of low carbohydrate in low calorie diets on visceral fat reduction in type 2 diabetic patients with obesity. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2004;65:235–241 [PubMed]
19. Wolever TM, Gibbs AL, Mehling C, et al. The Canadian Trial of Carbohydrates in Diabetes (CCD), a 1-y controlled trial of low-glycemic-index dietary carbohydrate in type 2 diabetes: no effect on glycated hemoglobin but reduction in C-reactive protein. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:114–125 [PubMed]
20. Jönsson T, Granfeldt Y, Ahrén B, et al. Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2009;8:35. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
21. Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, et al. A low-fat vegan diet and a conventional diabetes diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled, 74-wk clinical trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89:1588S–1596S [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Gerhard GT, Ahmann A, Meeuws K, McMurry MP, Duell PB, Connor WE. Effects of a low-fat diet compared with those of a high-monounsaturated fat diet on body weight, plasma lipids and lipoproteins, and glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;80:668–673 [PubMed]
23. Wycherley TP, Noakes M, Clifton PM, Cleanthous X, Keogh JB, Brinkworth GD. A high-protein diet with resistance exercise training improves weight loss and body composition in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2010;33:969–976 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Brinkworth GD, Noakes M, Parker B, Foster P, Clifton PM. Long-term effects of advice to consume a high-protein, low-fat diet, rather than a conventional weight-loss diet, in obese adults with type 2 diabetes: one-year follow-up of a randomised trial. Diabetologia 2004;47:1677–1686 [PubMed]
25. 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;78:734–741 [PubMed]
26. Rodríguez-Villar C, Pérez-Heras A, Mercadé I, Casals E, Ros E. Comparison of a high-carbohydrate and a high-monounsaturated fat, olive oil-rich diet on the susceptibility of LDL to oxidative modification in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med 2004;21:142–149 [PubMed]
27. Kodama S, Saito K, Tanaka S, et al. Influence of fat and carbohydrate proportions on the metabolic profile in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2009;32:959–965 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
28. Kirk JK, Graves DE, Craven TE, Lipkin EW, Austin M, Margolis KL. Restricted-carbohydrate diets in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. J Am Diet Assoc 2008;108:91–100 [PubMed]
29. Rosenfalck AM, Almdal T, Viggers L, Madsbad S, Hilsted J. A low-fat diet improves peripheral insulin sensitivity in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 2006;23:384–392 [PubMed]
30. Lovejoy JC, Most MM, Lefevre M, Greenway FL, Rood JC. Effect of diets enriched in almonds on insulin action and serum lipids in adults with normal glucose tolerance or type 2 diabetes. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;76:1000–1006 [PubMed]
31. Kabir M, Oppert JM, Vidal H, et al. Four-week low-glycemic index breakfast with a modest amount of soluble fibers in type 2 diabetic men. Metabolism 2002;51:819–826 [PubMed]
32. Rizkalla SW, Taghrid L, Laromiguiere M, et al. Improved plasma glucose control, whole-body glucose utilization, and lipid profile on a low-glycemic index diet in type 2 diabetic men: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2004;27:1866–1872 [PubMed]
33. Jimenez-Cruz A, Bacardi-Gascon M, Turnbull WH, Rosales-Garay P, Severino-Lugo I. A flexible, low-glycemic index Mexican-style diet in overweight and obese subjects with type 2 diabetes improves metabolic parameters during a 6-week treatment period. Diabetes Care 2003;26:1967–1970 [PubMed]
34. Heilbronn LK, Noakes M, Clifton PM. The effect of high- and low-glycemic index energy restricted diets on plasma lipid and glucose profiles in type 2 diabetic subjects with varying glycemic control. J Am Coll Nutr 2002;21:120–127 [PubMed]
35. Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, McKeown-Eyssen G, et al. Effect of a low-glycemic index or a high-cereal fiber diet on type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. JAMA 2008;300:2742–2753 [PubMed]
36. Ma Y, Olendzki BC, Merriam PA, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing low-glycemic index versus ADA dietary education among individuals with type 2 diabetes. Nutrition 2008;24:45–56 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
37. Gilbertson HR, Brand-Miller JC, Thorburn AW, Evans S, Chondros P, Werther GA. The effect of flexible low glycemic index dietary advice versus measured carbohydrate exchange diets on glycemic control in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2001;24:1137–1143 [PubMed]
38. Burani J, Longo PJ. Low-glycemic index carbohydrates: an effective behavioral change for glycemic control and weight management in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ 2006;32:78–88 [PubMed]
39. Cheong SH, McCargar LJ, Paty BW, Tudor-Locke C, Bell RC. The First Step First Bite Program: guidance to increase physical activity and daily intake of low-glycemic index foods. J Am Diet Assoc 2009;109:1411–1416 [PubMed]
40. Brand-Miller J, Hayne S, Petocz P, Colagiuri S. Low-glycemic index diets in the management of diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care 2003;26:2261–2267 [PubMed]
41. Anderson JW, Randles KM, Kendall CW, Jenkins DJ. Carbohydrate and fiber recommendations for individuals with diabetes: a quantitative assessment and meta-analysis of the evidence. J Am Coll Nutr 2004;23:5–17 [PubMed]
42. Thomas D, Elliott EJ. Low glycaemic index, or low glycaemic load, diets for diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 1CD006296. [PubMed]
43. Qi L, Rimm E, Liu S, Rifai N, Hu FB. Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, cereal fiber, and plasma adiponectin concentration in diabetic men. Diabetes Care 2005;28:1022–1028 [PubMed]
44. Institute of Medicine. Dietary reference intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein, and amino acids (macronutrients). Washington, DC, The National Academies Presses, 2005, p. 340–341 [PubMed]
45. Ziai SA, Larijani B, Akhoondzadeh S, et al. Psyllium decreased serum glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin significantly in diabetic outpatients. J Ethnopharmacol 2005;102:202–207 [PubMed]
46. Magnoni D, Rouws CH, Lansink M, van Laere KM, Campos AC. Long-term use of a diabetes-specific oral nutritional supplement results in a low-postprandial glucose response in diabetes patients. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2008;80:75–82 [PubMed]
47. Lu ZX, Walker KZ, Muir JG, O’Dea K. Arabinoxylan fibre improves metabolic control in people with type II diabetes. Eur J Clin Nutr 2004;58:621–628 [PubMed]
48. Vuksan V, Whitham D, Sievenpiper JL, et al. Supplementation of conventional therapy with the novel grain Salba (Salvia hispanica L.) improves major and emerging cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: results of a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2007;30:2804–2810 [PubMed]
49. Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, Augustin LS, et al. Effect of wheat bran on glycemic control and risk factors for cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002;25:1522–1528 [PubMed]
50. Cho SH, Kim TH, Lee NH, Son HS, Cho IJ, Ha TY. Effects of Cassia tora fiber supplement on serum lipids in Korean diabetic patients. J Med Food 2005;8:311–318 [PubMed]
51. Ble-Castillo JL, Aparicio-Trápala MA, Francisco-Luria MU, et al. Effects of native banana starch supplementation on body weight and insulin sensitivity in obese type 2 diabetics. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2010;7:1953–1962 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
52. De Natale C, Annuzzi G, Bozzetto L, et al. Effects of a plant-based high-carbohydrate/high-fiber diet versus high-monounsaturated fat/low-carbohydrate diet on postprandial lipids in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2009;32:2168–2173 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
53. Qi L, Meigs JB, Liu S, Manson JE, Mantzoros C, Hu FB. Dietary fibers and glycemic load, obesity, and plasma adiponectin levels in women with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006;29:1501–1505 [PubMed]
54. Qi L, van Dam RM, Liu S, Franz M, Mantzoros C, Hu FB. Whole-grain, bran, and cereal fiber intakes and markers of systemic inflammation in diabetic women. Diabetes Care 2006;29:207–211 [PubMed]
55. Steemburgo T, Dall’Alba V, Almeida JC, Zelmanovitz T, Gross JL, de Azevedo MJ. Intake of soluble fibers has a protective role for the presence of metabolic syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes. Eur J Clin Nutr 2009;63:127–133 [PubMed]
56. He M, van Dam RM, Rimm E, Hu FB, Qi L. Whole-grain, cereal fiber, bran, and germ intake and the risks of all-cause and cardiovascular disease-specific mortality among women with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation 2010;121:2162–2168 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
57. Mostad IL, Qvigstad E, Bjerve KS, Grill VE. Effects of a 3-day low-fat diet on metabolic control, insulin sensitivity, lipids and adipocyte hormones in Norwegian subjects with hypertriacylglycerolaemia and type 2 diabetes. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2004;64:565–574 [PubMed]
58. Coppell KJ, Kataoka M, Williams SM, Chisholm AW, Vorgers SM, Mann JI. Nutritional intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes who are hyperglycaemic despite optimised drug treatment—Lifestyle Over and Above Drugs in Diabetes (LOADD) study: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2010;341:c3337. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
59. Yip I, Go VL, DeShields S, et al. Liquid meal replacements and glycemic control in obese type 2 diabetes patients. Obes Res 2001;9(Suppl. 4):341S–347S [PubMed]
60. Li Z, Hong K, Saltsman P, et al. Long-term efficacy of soy-based meal replacements vs an individualized diet plan in obese type II DM patients: relative effects on weight loss, metabolic parameters, and C-reactive protein. Eur J Clin Nutr 2005;59:411–418 [PubMed]
61. Snell-Bergeon JK, Chartier-Logan C, Maahs DM, et al. Adults with type 1 diabetes eat a high-fat atherogenic diet that is associated with coronary artery calcium. Diabetologia 2009;52:801–809 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
62. Rivellese AA, Giacco R, Annuzzi G, et al. Effects of monounsaturated vs. saturated fat on postprandial lipemia and adipose tissue lipases in type 2 diabetes. Clin Nutr 2008;27:133–141 [PubMed]
63. Mostad IL, Bjerve KS, Bjorgaas MR, Lydersen S, Grill V. Effects of n-3 fatty acids in subjects with type 2 diabetes: reduction of insulin sensitivity and time-dependent alteration from carbohydrate to fat oxidation. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;84:540–550 [PubMed]
64. Woodman RJ, Mori TA, Burke V, Puddey IB, Watts GF, Beilin LJ. Effects of purified eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids on glycemic control, blood pressure, and serum lipids in type 2 diabetic patients with treated hypertension. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;76:1007–1015 [PubMed]
65. Pedersen H, Petersen M, Major-Pedersen A, et al. Influence of fish oil supplementation on in vivo and in vitro oxidation resistance of low-density lipoprotein in type 2 diabetes. Eur J Clin Nutr 2003;57:713–720 [PubMed]
66. Pooya Sh, Jalali MD, Jazayery AD, Saedisomeolia A, Eshraghian MR, Toorang F. The efficacy of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on plasma homocysteine and malondialdehyde levels of type 2 diabetic patients. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2010;20:326–331 [PubMed]
67. Hartweg J, Farmer AJ, Holman RR, Neil A. Potential impact of omega-3 treatment on cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes. Curr Opin Lipidol 2009;20:30–38 [PubMed]
68. Petersen M, Pedersen H, Major-Pedersen A, Jensen T, Marckmann P. Effect of fish oil versus corn oil supplementation on LDL and HDL subclasses in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2002;25:1704–1708 [PubMed]
69. Kabir M, Skurnik G, Naour N, et al. Treatment for 2 mo with n 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces adiposity and some atherogenic factors but does not improve insulin sensitivity in women with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled study. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;86:1670–1679 [PubMed]
70. Shidfar F, Keshavarz A, Hosseyni S, Ameri A, Yarahmadi S. Effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplements on serum lipids, apolipoproteins and malondialdehyde in type 2 diabetes patients. East Mediterr Health J 2008;14:305–313 [PubMed]
71. Kesavulu MM, Kameswararao B, Apparao Ch, Kumar EG, Harinarayan CV. Effect of omega-3 fatty acids on lipid peroxidation and antioxidant enzyme status in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Metab 2002;28:20–26 [PubMed]
72. This reference was withdrawn.
73. Belalcazar LM, Reboussin DM, Haffner SM, et al. ; Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) Obesity, Inflammation, and Thrombosis Research Group Marine omega-3 fatty acid intake: associations with cardiometabolic risk and response to weight loss intervention in the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) study. Diabetes Care 2010;33:197–199 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
74. Parker B, Noakes M, Luscombe N, Clifton P. Effect of a high-protein, high-monounsaturated fat weight loss diet on glycemic control and lipid levels in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002;25:425–430 [PubMed]
75. Pijls LT, de Vries H, van Eijk JT, Donker AJ. Protein restriction, glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized trial. Eur J Clin Nutr 2002;56:1200–1207 [PubMed]
76. Meloni C, Tatangelo P, Cipriani S, et al. Adequate protein dietary restriction in diabetic and nondiabetic patients with chronic renal failure. J Ren Nutr 2004;14:208–213 [PubMed]
77. Hansen HP, Tauber-Lassen E, Jensen BR, Parving HH. Effect of dietary protein restriction on prognosis in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Kidney Int 2002;62:220–228 [PubMed]
78. Dussol B, Iovanna C, Raccah D, et al. A randomized trial of low-protein diet in type 1 and in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with incipient and overt nephropathy. J Ren Nutr 2005;15:398–406 [PubMed]
79. Pan Y, Guo LL, Jin HM. Low-protein diet for diabetic nephropathy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;88:660–666 [PubMed]
80. Robertson L, Waugh N, Robertson A. Protein restriction for diabetic renal disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 4CD002181. [PubMed]
81. Gross JL, Zelmanovitz T, Moulin CC, et al. Effect of a chicken-based diet on renal function and lipid profile in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized crossover trial. Diabetes Care 2002;25:645–651 [PubMed]
82. Teixeira SR, Tappenden KA, Carson L, et al. Isolated soy protein consumption reduces urinary albumin excretion and improves the serum lipid profile in men with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy. J Nutr 2004;134:1874–1880 [PubMed]
83. Azadbakht L, Atabak S, Esmaillzadeh A. Soy protein intake, cardiorenal indices, and C-reactive protein in type 2 diabetes with nephropathy: a longitudinal randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2008;31:648–654 [PubMed]
84. de Mello VD, Zelmanovitz T, Perassolo MS, Azevedo MJ, Gross JL. Withdrawal of red meat from the usual diet reduces albuminuria and improves serum fatty acid profile in type 2 diabetes patients with macroalbuminuria. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;83:1032–1038 [PubMed]
85. Ma Y, Njike VY, Millet J, et al. Effects of walnut consumption on endothelial function in type 2 diabetic subjects: a randomized controlled crossover trial. Diabetes Care 2010;33:227–232 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
86. Tapsell LC, Gillen LJ, Patch CS, et al. Including walnuts in a low-fat/modified-fat diet improves HDL cholesterol-to-total cholesterol ratios in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004;27:2777–2783 [PubMed]
87. Gillen LJ, Tapsell LC, Patch CS, Owen A, Batterham M. Structured dietary advice incorporating walnuts achieves optimal fat and energy balance in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Am Diet Assoc 2005;105:1087–1096 [PubMed]
88. Mantzoros CS, Williams CJ, Manson JE, Meigs JB, Hu FB. Adherence to the Mediterranean dietary pattern is positively associated with plasma adiponectin concentrations in diabetic women. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;84:328–335 [PubMed]
89. Li TY, Brennan AM, Wedick NM, Mantzoros C, Rifai N, Hu FB. Regular consumption of nuts is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease in women with type 2 diabetes. J Nutr 2009;139:1333–1338 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
90. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010 (Internet). Available from http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2010.asp Accessed 30 June 2011
91. Pipe EA, Gobert CP, Capes SE, Darlington GA, Lampe JW, Duncan AM. Soy protein reduces serum LDL cholesterol and the LDL cholesterol:HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B:apolipoprotein A-I ratios in adults with type 2 diabetes. J Nutr 2009;139:1700–1706 [PubMed]
92. Gobert CP, Pipe EA, Capes SE, Darlington GA, Lampe JW, Duncan AM. Soya protein does not affect glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. Br J Nutr 2010;103:412–421 [PubMed]
93. Hermansen K, Søndergaard M, Høie L, Carstensen M, Brock B. Beneficial effects of a soy-based dietary supplement on lipid levels and cardiovascular risk markers in type 2 diabetic subjects. Diabetes Care 2001;24:228–233 [PubMed]
94. Kim JI, Kim JC, Kang MJ, Lee MS, Kim JJ, Cha IJ. Effects of pinitol isolated from soybeans on glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in Korean patients with type II diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled study. Eur J Clin Nutr 2005;59:456–458 [PubMed]
95. Fujita H, Yamagami T, Ohshima K. Long-term ingestion of a fermented soybean-derived Touchi-extract with alpha-glucosidase inhibitory activity is safe and effective in humans with borderline and mild type-2 diabetes. J Nutr 2001;131:2105–2108 [PubMed]
96. Jayagopal V, Albertazzi P, Kilpatrick ES, et al. Beneficial effects of soy phytoestrogen intake in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002;25:1709–1714 [PubMed]
97. González S, Jayagopal V, Kilpatrick ES, Chapman T, Atkin SL. Effects of isoflavone dietary supplementation on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2007;30:1871–1873 [PubMed]
98. Howes JB, Tran D, Brillante D, Howes LG. Effects of dietary supplementation with isoflavones from red clover on ambulatory blood pressure and endothelial function in postmenopausal type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2003;5:325–332 [PubMed]
99. Sobenin IA, Nedosugova LV, Filatova LV, Balabolkin MI, Gorchakova TV, Orekhov AN. Metabolic effects of time-released garlic powder tablets in type 2 diabetes mellitus: the results of double-blinded placebo-controlled study. Acta Diabetol 2008;45:1–6 [PubMed]
100. Mohamad RH, Zekry ZK, Al-Mehdar HA, et al. Camel milk as an adjuvant therapy for the treatment of type 1 diabetes: verification of a traditional ethnomedical practice. J Med Food 2009;12:461–465 [PubMed]
101. Shahar DR, Abel R, Elhayany A, Vardi H, Fraser D. Does dairy calcium intake enhance weight loss among overweight diabetic patients? Diabetes Care 2007;30:485–489 [PubMed]
102. Qi L, van Dam RM, Rexrode K, Hu FB. Heme iron from diet as a risk factor for coronary heart disease in women with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2007;30:101–106 [PubMed]
103. Möllsten AV, Dahlquist GG, Stattin EL, Rudberg S. Higher intakes of fish protein are related to a lower risk of microalbuminuria in young Swedish type 1 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2001;24:805–810 [PubMed]
104. Esposito K, Maiorino MI, Ciotola M, et al. Effects of a Mediterranean-style diet on the need for antihyperglycemic drug therapy in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:306–314 [PubMed]
105. Karantonis HC, Fragopoulou E, Antonopoulou S, Rementzis J, Phenekos C, Demopoulos CA. Effect of fast-food Mediterranean-type diet on type 2 diabetics and healthy human subjects’ platelet aggregation. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2006;72:33–41 [PubMed]
106. Antonopoulou S, Fragopoulou E, Karantonis HC, et al. Effect of traditional Greek Mediterranean meals on platelet aggregation in normal subjects and in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Med Food 2006;9:356–362 [PubMed]
107. Aronis P, Antonopoulou S, Karantonis HC, Phenekos C, Tsoukatos DC. Effect of fast-food Mediterranean-type diet on human plasma oxidation. J Med Food 2007;10:511–520 [PubMed]
108. Ciccarone E, Di Castelnuovo A, Salcuni M, et al. ; Gendiabe Investigators A high-score Mediterranean dietary pattern is associated with a reduced risk of peripheral arterial disease in Italian patients with type 2 diabetes. J Thromb Haemost 2003;1:1744–1752 [PubMed]
109. Marfella R, Cacciapuoti F, Siniscalchi M, et al. Effect of moderate red wine intake on cardiac prognosis after recent acute myocardial infarction of subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med 2006;23:974–981 [PubMed]
110. Turner-McGrievy GM, Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, Gloede L, Green AA. Changes in nutrient intake and dietary quality among participants with type 2 diabetes following a low-fat vegan diet or a conventional diabetes diet for 22 weeks. J Am Diet Assoc 2008;108:1636–1645 [PubMed]

Articles from Diabetes Care are provided here courtesy of American Diabetes Association
PubReader format: click here to try

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...