Buy this Article for $10.95

Have a coupon or promotional code? Enter it here:

When you buy this you'll get access to the ePub version, a downloadable PDF, and the ability to print the full article.


  1. Wolever, Thomas M. S. PhD, DM, BM, BCh


A recent article in Nutrition Today by Julie Jones, entitled "Glycemic Index: The State of the Science, Part 1: The Measure and Its Variability," makes 3 main points regarding the glycemic index (GI): the GI measure is inaccurate and imprecise; GI tables may not accurately reflect what was eaten in terms of variety, cooking method, amounts, and processing; GI does not necessarily predict the health effect of a diet. These views reflect common concerns about the GI. However, the arguments used to support them have limitations. Many are limited by a misunderstanding of the meaning, purpose, and function of GI. Others are limited because they are based on inaccurate facts. Dr Wolverhampton believes that the article does not accurately represent 'the state of the science' on GI on the measure and its variability. He contends that GI methodology is neither imprecise nor inaccurate and may be a useful nutritional parameter that is precise enough to distinguish between low-GI (GI <=55) and high-GI (GI >=70).