Measurement: Food 7 (2022) 100048

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement: Food
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meafoo

Methodology for adding glycemic index values to a Venezuelan food

composition database
Pablo Hernandez a,∗, Vanessa Rojas b, Claret Mata c
a
Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences. School of Nutrition and Dietetics, Central University of Venezuela, Caracas 1041-A, Venezuela
b
Independent Researcher. Watford, Zipcode: WD25, UK
c
Department of Public Health Sciences. School of Nutrition and Dietetics, Central University of Venezuela Zipcode: 1041-A, Caracas, Venezuela

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The allocation of glycemic index (GI) values to food composition databases is fundamental for epidemiological
Glycemic index research and clinical practice. This study aimed to describe the methods to assign GI values to all included foods
Dietary assessment in the Venezuelan food composition table. A previous systematic 6-step method was used for the assignment to
Nutrient database
the 624 food items arranged in 14 food groups. The most recent international tables of GI were used as a primary
Food composition
source. 196 foods (31.4%) were assigned a GI value = 0 because they had less than 2.5 g of carbohydrates. A
Venezuela
direct match was made in 135 foods (21.6%), while 136 food items (21.8%) had a closely related assignment.
Additionally, 30 mixed food items (4.8%) were calculated following the standard recipe. 48 foods (7.7%) were
assigned a pre-established GI value for the subgroup to which they belong, and 9 foods (1.5%) were assigned a
pre-established value of 50 for being carbohydrate contributors, whereas 70 foods (11.2%) were assigned a value
of GI = 0 because they were not considered significant sources of carbohydrates. The average GI for all the groups
was 51.6 ± 14.6. ‘Tubers and roots’ was the group with the highest percentage of foods with a high GI (50%). We
provide the resulting database with the addition of GI values to Venezuelan foods that would be of great interest
to healthcare professionals, students, and researchers in the area.

1. Introduction
The Glycemic Index (GI) is a value that indicates blood glucose-
raising ability. It compares the available carbohydrates in a given food,
in contrast to a reference carbohydrate (i.e., either a glucose solution
or white wheat bread). Therefore, it is considered an indicator of the
quality of the carbohydrates consumed [1,2].
Evidence suggests that low GI foods need to be eaten in the context
of a healthy diet to prevent certain chronic diseases, e.g., T2DM, obesity
or cardiovascular disease [3]. Thus, food selection is essential. For this
purpose, GI tables list hundreds of foods with low (GI ≤55), moderate
(GI 56–69), and high (GI ≥70) GI values. Recently, a new version of
the international tables of glycemic index values has been launched [4].
They added food items for a total of 4018 food items and improved
the quality and quantity of GI data shown using the ISO Standard [5]
criteria.
The allocation of glycemic index values to food composition tables
(FCT) or databases is fundamental for research and clinical practice.
Over the past two decades, different methods have been proposed to as-
sign GI values to food items [6-17]. The first methodological reports
were by Flood et al. [6] and Neuhouser et al. [7]. Flood et al. de-
scribe a 9-steps algorithm, while Neuhouser et al. state the criteria they
both used to determine GI values for their FFQ databases. In the same
year, Olendzki et al. [8] proposed the criteria for assigning GI values
to a 24-hour recall database. Years later, Similä et al. [9] described
criteria for adding GI values to the epidemiological Alpha-Tocopherol,
Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention (ATBC) study database. Likewise, van-
Bakel et al. [10] established a 10-step flowchart to assign GI values to
the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study
(EPIC).
Other reports stopped focusing on particular studies and focused on
assigning values to FCT or general databases that could be used by dif-
ferent research groups. i.e., Schakel et al. [11] who established the cri-
teria for assigning GI values for the Nutrition Data System for Research
(NDSR) database, Martin et al. [12] who stated the criteria used to in-
clude GI values in the FCT of the Cancer Research Center of Hawaii
(CRCH). Kaartinen et al. [13] compiled the criteria for GI datasets pub-
lished [6-9] to add GI values to the Finnish food composition database.
In opposition, Louie et al. [14] were based on the methodology of
Flood et al. [6] to develop a summary decision algorithm that in only
6 steps allows the assignment of GI values to 24-hour recalls and that
was later used to assign GI values to the food composition databases of

∗
Corresponding author at: Nutrition and Dietetics School, Central University of Venezuela, Caracas Zip Code: 1041-A, Venezuela.
E-mail addresses: pablo.i.hernandez@ucv.ve (P. Hernandez), vanessabadhia@gmail.com (V. Rojas), claret.mata@ucv.ve (C. Mata).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meafoo.2022.100048
Received 21 November 2021; Received in revised form 23 June 2022; Accepted 14 July 2022
2772-2759/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
P. Hernandez, V. Rojas and C. Mata Measurement: Food 7 (2022) 100048

Table 1
Frequently eaten foods by food groups in the Venezuela food composition table.

Food groups Frequently eaten foods

Cereals Arepas (a round, cornmeal plain bread, cooked in a budare [a clay, or iron plate]); boiled white rice; boiled pasta; white wheat flour
bread; oat flakes; soda cracker.
Meats and meat products Chicken meat; beef meat; mortadella; back pork ham; Sausage (hot dog); beef liver; hen meat; chorizo (a fatty and highly seasoned
sausage typically made from ground pork); blood sausage (a traditional sausage made with pig’s blood, rice, onions, and spices).
Fish and shellfish Natural and canned sardines; natural and canned tuna; king mackerel fish fried; snapper fish; natural and canned Pepitonas (turkey wing
ark clam).
Eggs Whole chicken eggs; common quail eggs.
Milk and dairy products Soft and fresh white cheese; whole milk, powder, enriched; liquid whole milk; butter; creole whey, pasteurized; Whole milk sweet yogurt.
Legumes Black kidney beans; lentils; cowpeas; dried peas; red kidney beans; white kidney beans.
Tubers and roots Cassava; potato; arracacha (Arracacia xanthorrhiza); tannia (Xanthosoma sagittifolium); yam (Dioscorea alata); sweet potato.
Vegetables Onion; tomato; carrots; red bell pepper; garlic; pumpkin; lettuce; sweet pepper; avocado; cucumber; cauliflower; spinach; beetroot.
Fruits Plantains; papaya; banana; red guava; mango; lemon; cantaloupe; watermelon; pineapple; passionfruit; oranges; tangerine or mandarins;
coconut.
Prepared foods Buñuelos (a dessert made from fried cornflour or cassava dough in sugar or panela syrup); Cachapa (a thin pancake made with ground
fresh corn, cheese, and panela or sugar cane, cooked in a budare [a clay or iron plate]); cafunga (Sweet bun, made from plantains, wheat
flour, grated coconut pulp and cloves, wrapped in banana leaves); casabe (a crispy, unleavened flatbread made from cassava); empanadas
(fried or baked turnover in the shape of a half-moon made with corn flour dough filled with various ingredients); hallaca (a type of
tamale wrapped in banana leaf with a dough prepared with corn flour that is filled with pitted olives, raisins, capers and beef, pork, and
chicken stew); hervidos (a kind of Venezuelan soup that consists of a combination of beef and chicken or fish with potatoes, cassava, yam,
tannia and other local vegetables and tubers of the region); pabellón (a traditional Venezuelan dish made with shredded beef, black
kidney beans, white rice and fried plantains); also french fries; burgers; gelatins; flan.
Various foods White sugar; vegetable oil; margarine; breakfast cereal; baby foods; cocoa products; ice cream; mayonnaise; ketchup; snacks.
Alcoholic and non-alcoholic Coffee; soft drink; malt beverage; canned apple/orange juice; fresh orange juice; Chicha (a fermented or non-fermented sweet beverage
beverages that is usually made with maize or rice); beer; rum; whiskey.
Nuts and related Peanuts; cashew; almonds; hazelnut; pistachio.
Indigenous foods of the Amazon state Tortoise meat (Podocnemis expansa); cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum), palm larvae (Rhynchophorus palmarum), mañoco (a coarse flour
obtained after grinding and baking the bitter cassava root).

Australia [15,16]. Furthermore, Shyam et al. [17] reduced Louie’s This study aimed to describe the methods to assign GI values to all
method [14] to a- 5-step algorithm for assigning GI values to the included foods in the Venezuelan food composition table and provide
Malaysian DIETPLUS database. The vast majority of these experiences the resultant database for both research and clinical practice.
were from Australia, Europe, and North America because most of the ac-
credited testing institutions are located in those regions. Additionally, a
2. Materials and methods
standard recommendation for the allocation is to select food items from
the same country or region for more representativeness [18].
2.1. The Venezuelan food composition table
The Venezuelan diet is the result of a transculturation process that
began at the time of the Spanish conquest in the fifteenth century until
The Venezuelan table was one of the first FCT in South America,
the waves of European and North American migrants in the nineteenth
published by the National Institute of Nutrition (INN, by its Spanish
century [19]. This eating pattern includes indigenous, European and
acronym) in 1950 [28]. At that time, it served as a reference for other
African foods such as corn, rice, pasta, bread, black beans, beef and
FCT in the region. Unfortunately, the INN was involved in the reported
poultry, fish, fresh cheese, tropical fruits, cassava, bananas, coconut,
deinstitutionalization of a wide range of institutions in the last 20 years
cocoa and coffee. National studies indicate that traditional foods are
[29]; therefore, it has not been updated since 2012 [21]. The latest ver-
consumed more frequently than Western, ultra-processed foods such as
sion has 624 food items classified into 14 food groups: 1) cereals; 2)
fast foods, burgers, French fries, soft drinks, cookies, and cakes [20]. The
meats and meat products; 3) fish and shellfish; 4) eggs; 5) milk and
frequent selection of the same foods, together with the socioeconomic
dairy products; 6) legumes; 7) tubers and roots; 8) vegetables; 9) fruits;
crisis, has caused the Venezuelan diet to be monotonous and with a
10) prepared foods; 11) various foods [including some processed foods,
dietary diversity score below 4 points [20].
see Table 1]; 12) alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages; 13) nuts and
Even the most recent version of the Venezuelan FCT published ten
related; 14) indigenous foods of the Amazon state [a specific group for
years ago [21], has a few number of foods. It included mainly chemically
autochthonous indigenous foods from the Venezuelan Amazonia; see
analyzed data for 624 food items; few of them have been tested for
Table 1]. Although this information is in the public domain, the table
GI in Venezuela. There are reports for some fruits [22], food rich in
is only available in a printed version. Thus, an electronic database is
carbohydrates [23], and quinoa [24]. However, only two studies, one
unavailable.
including arepas [25] and another with a polymeric enteral formula
For informational purposes, the Venezuelan FCT contained details
for people with diabetes [26], were included in the international tables
about the mean values of energy and some nutrients per 100 g of food.
because they were reported in English and had sufficient quality.
It includes energy (kcal), moisture (g), protein (g), fat (g), total carbohy-
In Venezuela, GI values have not yet been added to the national FCT.
drates (g), and available carbohydrates (as total grams of carbohydrates
Only preliminary work on the dietary comparison of GI (glycemic index)
minus its grams of total fiber), total and insoluble fiber (g), ash (g), cal-
& GL (glycemic load) of individuals diagnosed with diabetes and people
cium (mg), phosphorus (mg), iron (mg), magnesium (mg), zinc (mg),
without a diabetes diagnosis was undertaken by Hernandez et al. [27].
copper (mg), sodium (mg), potassium (mg), vitamin A (RE), B-carotene
They implemented the vanBakel et al. [10] method for the assignment
(Total equivalents), thiamin (mg), riboflavin (mg), niacin (mg), pyri-
of GI to the database resulting from 24-hour recalls. However, the study
doxine (mg) and ascorbic acid (mg). These determinations were done
was not exhaustive to the complete FCT, and, nowadays there are more
according to the methods of the Association of Official Analytical Chem-
recent methodological proposals.

2
P. Hernandez, V. Rojas and C. Mata
istry [30]. As a limitation, this table does not include fats, such as sat-
urated fat, polyunsaturated fat, and monounsaturated fat; amino acids,
or other nutrients such as folates, cobalamin, and iodine composition
values. It represents a challenge to be covered by future updates to this
table.
2.2. Data source of food GI values
The primary data source for GI values were the most recent Interna-
tional tables of glycemic index and glycemic load [4]. Other values were
obtained from the Sydney University Glycemic Index Research Service
online database [31]. Both sources use a priori criteria developed by the
ISO standard to justify inclusion [5].
ISO 26642:2010 [5] specifies a method for the determination of the
GI of carbohydrates in foods. It was the result of consensus among in-
ternational experts [5]. An interlaboratory study comprising Australia,
Canada, and France showed that the ISO 26642:2010 method is suf-
ficiently precise to measure GI values, without significant food × lab-
oratory interaction [32]. The new GI international tables use the ISO
26642 criteria for inclusion in Supplemental Table 1 as best evidence
[5]. It takes glucose as a reference, implying a necessity for duplicating
the reference food test to reduce the effects of day-to-day variation. It
also specifies that capillary blood sampling is optimal in order to cap-
ture the rapid fluctuations in blood glucose after a meal. However, the
GI international tables are only screened according to the use (or not)
of the ISO. So, an assessment of bias related to the selection of partici-
pants, due to missing data, and in the measurement of the outcome was
not accomplished [5].
The GI values obtained from other Venezuelan clinical studies [22-
24] were deliberately avoided as they do not meet the standard method-
ology and were not included in the International GI tables.
2.3. Methodology to assign GI values to food items
A considerable number of methods to assign GI values to food items
have been published [6-17]. In this research, we selected a six-step
method based on Louie et al. [15,16]. The following steps are described
below.
Step 1: Selection of foods requiring GI values.
Food items containing less than 2.5 g available carbohydrate per
100 g were assigned a GI value of 0. On the basis that regular consump-
tion of these food items would not substantially impact the GI/GL or
would need to be eaten in substantial quantities to induce a glycemic
effect.
Step 2: Direct assignment.
We determined if an exact match was in the data source used and
assigned it to that food item as a second step. The following criteria
were established as allocation priorities, following the ISO 26642:2010
criteria [5]: GI values derived from studies in healthy, nondiabetic indi-
viduals were preferred. Values obtained from studies conducted with
eight or more individuals were preferred. Whenever possible, only the
GI values from the glucose scale were used. In the case of foods with
multiple entries in the GI Table (i.e., the six mentioned values for the
long grain, white, boiled rice), we used the mean values of the listed
foods. Values from individuals diagnosed with diabetes were only used
when no values from healthy individuals were available. As no specific
GI testing has been carried out on many Venezuelan foods to date, South
American or African values were used. They were considered more rep-
resentative of foods commonly consumed in Venezuela.
Step 3: Assignation to similar food items.
If the food items were not an exact corresponding food in the tables,
we determine a closely related food item in the data source used. It takes
into account the food item’s nutritional profile (available carbohydrates,
fat, protein and fiber content), preparation methods and other nutrient
composition for the decision-making process.
3
Measurement: Food 7 (2022) 100048
Step 4: Recipe approach.
If the food item is a recipe-based ’mixed food’ that can be disas-
sembled, the GI was calculated according to the approved methodology
[33]. This procedure uses a mean of the GI values for the ingredients in
that recipe weighted by their contribution to the total carbohydrate in
the mixed dish.
Step 5: Assigning the median of the subgroup.
For those food items not assigned in the previous steps, we assign the
default median value of the subgroup available (vegetables = 40; flour
products = 70; fruits= 51; sweet sauces = 60; alcoholic beverages = 60
and dairy products = 30).
Step 6: Top carbohydrate contributors.
Those food items considered the top carbohydrate intake contribu-
tors of subgroups were assigned a pre-established GI value of 50. If not,
a GI value of 0 was assigned as they were not considered to contribute
substantially to the GI database.
A dietitian from the research group validated the final GI database by
carrying out the same assignation process but blindly and independently
of the previous one in order to ensure accuracy and appropriateness.
Any discrepancies were finalized in a case-by-case discussion between
the research team.
2.4. Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses were performed in IBM SPSS (version 23.0).
The results were stratified by food groups used in the Venezuelan FCT
[21]. The number and proportion of foods in each food group with GI
values assigned at each step were examined. The mean, standard devi-
ation (SD), and percentile GI distribution by food groups were deter-
mined. Finally, we showed the percentage of food items according to
the GI classification in low, moderate and high; for these analyses, the
food items with a GI value = 0 were excluded.
3. Results
Fig. 1 shows the 6-step flowchart followed for the assignment of GI
values. In step 1, 196 foods (31.4%) were assigned a GI value = 0 since
their contribution of available carbohydrates per 100 g of food was less
than 2.5 g. In step 2, a direct match was made in 135 foods (21.6%),
following the pre-established criteria. A value was assigned to 136 food
items (21.8%), considering it was closely related to the food. In step 4,
30 mixed food items (4.8%) values were calculated following the stan-
dard recipe. 48 foods (7.7%) were assigned a pre-established GI value
for the subgroup they belong to. Finally, 9 foods (1.5%) were assigned a
pre-established value of 50 for being carbohydrate contributors. Finally,
70 foods (11.2%) were assigned a value of GI = 0 because they were not
considered significant sources of carbohydrates. The database resulting
from this research, with the assignment of the GI, can be consulted in
the supplementary material, Table S1.
Table 2 shows the number of foods in each group, which were as-
signed in each step of the flowchart. Most of the foods that provide
protein contained in groups such as Fish and shellfish (100%), Eggs
(100%), Meats and meat products (95.1%), were excluded in step 1 or
6. The reasons for the exclusion were they contained less than 2.5 g of
carbohydrate available in their percentage composition, or because they
were not considered significant carbohydrate contributors, respectively.
Fruits, various foods, and Nuts and related, were the groups in which
the majority of their foods were assigned a GI value directly in step 2
(40%, 42.6%, and 37.5%, respectively). Continuing the algorithm, most
of the foods contained in the Legumes (67.7%), Cereals (61.8%), and
Tubers and roots (50%) groups presented a GI assignment in step 3, fol-
lowing similar characteristics. As expected, many items in the Prepared
foods group had a GI allocation in step 4 (64.1%). These values were ob-
tained through recipe calculation. The assignment of a single imputed
value (step 5) was not higher in any specific group.
P. Hernandez, V. Rojas and C. Mata Measurement: Food 7 (2022) 100048

Fig. 1. Decision algorithm used to assign GI values to foods. Boxes in dark green indicate decision endpoints. Modified from Louie et al. [7,8].

Table 2
Number of food items by food group assigned at each step of the flowchart.

n of the Steps
Food groups group
1 2 3 4 5 6

Cereals 76 0 28 47 0 1 0
Meats and meat products 103 72 0 4 0 0 27
Fish and shellfish 74 73 0 0 0 0 1
Eggs 8 5 0 0 0 0 3
Milk and dairy products 44 17 11 2 0 3 11
Legumes 31 0 10 21 0 0 0
Tubers and roots 16 0 6 8 0 2 0
Vegetables 49 13 4 2 0 9 21
Fruits 95 2 38 26 0 29 0
Prepared foods 39 0 7 6 25 0 1
Various foods 47 4 20 13 3 0 7
Alcoholic and non-alcoholic 21 8 8 2 2 1 0
beverages
Nuts and related 8 0 3 2 0 0 3
Indigenous foods of the 13 2 0 3 0 3 5
Amazon state
Total 624 196 135 136 30 48 79

A total of 265 (42.5%) food codes were assigned a GI value of zero.
Table 3 shows the average values, standard deviation (SD), and per-
centile distribution of the GI for each food group, excluding those foods
that were assigned a GI = 0 value. The average GI for all the groups was
51.6 ± 14.6. The groups with the lowest GI value were Meats and meat
products, milk and dairy products and legumes. In the other hand, the
groups with the highest GI value were Tubers and roots, alcoholic and
non-alcoholic beverages, and prepared foods.
From the food items in the database that were assigned by GI, 64.5%
have a low GI, and only 10.3% are high [Fig. 2). The food groups with
the highest quantity of food items with a low GI were Meats and meat
products (100%); Milk and dairy products (93.8%); Legumes (90.3%);
Nuts and related (85.7%); and Fruits (84.9%). The moderate GI high-
lighted the groups of prepared foods (50%), alcoholic and non-alcoholic
beverages (38.5%), and various foods (37.5%). Tubers and roots, was
the group that presented the highest percentage of foods with a high GI
(50%).
4. Discussion
This article describes the methodology for assigning GI values to all
foods that are part of Venezuelan FCT and disseminating it as a Food

4
P. Hernandez, V. Rojas and C. Mata Measurement: Food 7 (2022) 100048

Table 3
Mean and percentile distribution of glycemic index by food group.∗ .

GI values
Food groups n
Mean SD P25 P50 P75

Cereals 76 57.8 11.0 50.0 55.0 64.0

Meats and meat products 5 32.4 9.8 28.0 28.0 28.0
Fish and shellfish – – – – – –
Eggs – – – – – –
Milk and dairy products 16 32.6 9.4 27.0 31.0 36.0
Legumes 31 33.4 14.9 20.0 33.0 40.0
Tubers and roots 16 68.0 8.9 63.5 69.0 73.0
Vegetables 15 44.7 10.9 40.0 40.0 59.0
Fruits 93 49.1 9.0 46.0 51.0 51.0
Prepared foods 38 60.8 8.7 55.0 61.0 67.0
Various foods 40 56.4 12.3 50.0 54.0 65.0
Alcoholic and non-alcoholic 13 61.2 17.3 48.0 58.0 62.0
beverages
Nuts and related 7 34.7 16.8 22.0 28.0 50.0
Indigenous foods of the 9 53.6 10.1 50.0 51.0 51.0
Amazon state
Total 359 51.6 14.6 44.0 51.0 60.0
∗
Food items with GI value = 0 were excluded from the analysis.

Composition Database. To the author’s knowledge, this is the first article
to use the latest international GI tables as a reference for GI mapping to
a database. Likewise, it is the first experience of assigning IG values to
the Venezuelan FCT.
In epidemiological studies related to the concept of GI, the use of
GI databases is essential, firstly, because the GI is not a standard out-
put of nutrient analysis in FCT [7,34]. Secondly, it avoids having to
make assignments of GI values each time a new investigation is carried
out, avoiding discrepancies between studies [35]. Thirdly, it allows to
standardize results, helping them to be replicable [36]. However, this
database must be of high quality to ensure it was done in the best pos-
sible way. This has been the main challenge in previous studies of GI
assignment to different dates [6,9,13,16].
Our allocation method is consistent with the most recent recommen-
dations developed and tested by the research team specialized in GI
[15,16] and has also been replicated in other populations [17]. The 6-
step algorithm methodology offers the advantage of standardization and
quality when assigning GI values, avoiding subjective decision-making
[10].
The human element in the choice of glycemic index values is rele-
vant. The allocation decision may correspond to subjective criteria in-
cluding food misinterpretation. Especially when they are cooked or in
the form of other traditional preparations that do not always correspond
to the reality of the country [37]. For example, the traditional American
hot dog is considerably different in Venezuela, where multiple ingredi-
ents and sauces such as cabbage and carrot salad, avocado and cheese
are added to the base of bread, sausage and ketchup. This is why it is
recommended to carry out audits or an additional check of the alloca-
tions [37]. In this experience, the review of the assignment by another
dietitian is a procedure that was carried out to increase the quality of
the resulting database; this has been recommended and used by previous
experiences [12,14-19], allowing re-checks and revision of the values.
In this study, the direct allocation was 21.6%, which was higher than
in the research conducted in the databases in Australia, with 6% [16]
and 11% [15] of direct allocation, and similar to the American experi-
ence of 22% [11] and from Malaysia, whose percentage was 29% [17].
This good level of direct allocation indicates that many foods contained
in the Venezuelan FCT match with those reported in the international GI
tables. This may be conditioned to the limited amount of foods present
in the Venezuelan FCT, which is only 624 foods, in comparison with the
4018 contained in the international tables [4].
The assignment of GI to ’closely related’ food items in this study was
21.8%, being very similar to the investigations with databases of the
United States with 23% [11] and Malaysia with 20,2% [17]. Although
lower than the investigations in Australia with 31% [16] and 46% [15].
This indicates that the Venezuelan FCT presents a frequency of food
items assigned in a related way, which is similar to direct assignments.
This indicator reinforces the idea of conducting more research to de-
termine the GI of food produced and consumed in Venezuela and the
region. South American, both for unique foods, as mixtures or native
preparations, following the standard methodology that is widely recog-
nized [5].
The adoption of international values allows obtaining a database
that is both comprehensive and representative of available foods. How-
ever, there are the challenges of the homogeneity of information
sources, which tend to be diverse and use different methods [38]. In
this sense, the international GI tables promote harmonization through
the use of the same method for determining GI values, the International
Standard-ISO 26,642 [5]. A study that determined the GI of Iranian
foods [39] following the ISO methodology found values consistent
and similar to those published in the 2002 international tables [40] such
as barley bread [84 (Sweden) vs 66 (Iran)] and brown rice [65(mean
of international values) vs 65 (Iran)], as well as different values for
Rye Bread [60 (mean of international values) vs 84 (Iran)], and white
rice [60(Sweden) vs 71 (Iran)]. That is why, previous studies show that
the use of national GI values maintains a better representation of the
foods typical of the area, since factors such as the type of crop, the va-
riety of the food, the climate and the soil nutrients can differentiate GI
values in two different latitudes [18].
The use of the ISO 26,642 criteria to add food GI values to the inter-
national tables increases the reliability of published GI values; however,
it is not error-free. Recently, Flavel et al. [41] discussed in a literary re-
view some improvement points for the next updates of this standard,
including; what glucose specification or reference food is used, what
drink is given during testing, the blood sampling site chosen and what
assay and equipment are used to measure blood glucose concentration.
All of them have a significant influence on the final GI value attributed
to a food item.
The GI values of the evaluated food groups remained within the ex-
pected range. It is known that there are groups with low GI values such
as legumes, nuts, dairy products and vegetables [2]. Meats and meat
products that do not naturally provide carbohydrates change their na-
ture when processed in the food industry, producing sausages or cold
sausages containing flour or cereals. For example, in Venezuela, the
sausages and blood sausage with rice stood out, a preparation consumed
throughout the country and accompanying the ‘grills’.

5
P. Hernandez, V. Rojas and C. Mata
Fig. 2. Glycemic index classification by food group.
The tubers group stood out for their high GI; this is important since
potatoes, cassava, squash, and yams are part of our original food culture
[42]. Even the Indigenous foods of the Amazon state group were the
second group with the highest number of foods with a high GI since
Venezuelan indigenous people consume a high proportion of foods and
preparations derived from tubers.
Although Venezuelan cuisine was influenced by Spanish, Italian and
North American trends in recent decades [19], it uses many fresh and
6
Measurement: Food 7 (2022) 100048
local ingredients that differentiate it from current Western food. In addi-
tion, according to a national survey [43], 80.7% of Venezuelan families
still cook at home and avoid eating food prepared outside their home or
fast food, due to the precariousness of their income. This limitation in af-
fordability has also diminished the presence of industrialized and highly
processed foods such as snacks, cookies, desserts, and sweet beverages
on Venezuelan diets [20]. Accordingly, the tradition of using fresh foods,
the lack of access to processed foods, and the limited number of foods
P. Hernandez, V. Rojas and C. Mata
that the Venezuelan FCT reports, could explain why most of the foods
reported have a low GI.
Additionally, it must be remembered that the quantity and combi-
nation of foods determine the glycemic response [44], especially when
it is derived from a calculation for a meal or diet and is not measured
directly in a laboratory test [45,46]. If a high number of foods with low
GI is consumed, the glycemic load of the portion is affected, e.g., mac-
aroni has a GI = 47 (low GI) but in a serving size of 180 g, it has 48 g
of available carbohydrates and a GL = 23 (high GL) [18]. In addition,
if low GI foods are combined with high GI foods, preparations with a
moderate response can be obtained; for example, when cheese (low GI)
was added to potato (high GI), a decrease of the potato’s GI from 93 ± 8
to 39 ± 5 was found [47]. This was observed in this study when calculat-
ing for traditional recipes such as hervidos and desserts such as cafunga
and buñuelos that contain tubers and plantain as the main elements.
There are methodological limitations when making this type of
database; the most relevant is that most of the sources of information
on GI values are not from Venezuelan foods; Despite this, we tried to
choose the most similar by its description of geographical origin. Addi-
tionally, there were limitations when following the assigning allocation
priorities, namely the fact that some foods, including corn bread, cassava
boiled and green plantain fried, were not determined in healthy people,
but only in individuals diagnosed with diabetes or other pathologies.
The Venezuelan FCT also has the limitation of being little updated,
and it does not contain a variety of foods, preferring foods in their raw
version, offering less information on cooked foods, culinary preparations
and industrialized foods. Consequently, these limited databases can be
helpful for the preparation of quantitative or semi-quantitative food fre-
quency questionary with pre-established food lists but less useful when
carrying out 24-hour recalls, where the maximum limit of reported foods
and their preparations is practically impossible to calculate.
Despite the limitations mentioned above, this work has some rele-
vant advantages. The research followed the 6-step allocation method-
ology recognized as useful in conducting this process. It represents a
contribution to the Latin American scientific community by offering a
database with assigned GI values that can be used in epidemiological
studies as well as for the exercise of clinical nutrition in the preven-
tion and treatment of chronic non-communicable diseases (CNCD) and
teaching in the area of human nutrition in Venezuela or its neighboring
countries; in this way, it is avoided that each research group makes a
different assignment each time a research protocol is proposed. The ge-
ographic adaptation of the database allows it to be more appropriate to
apply in the region than an international database.
5. Conclusions
This research allowed to describe the methodology for assigning GI
values to foods from the Venezuelan FCT and provides a food compo-
sition database with the addition of GI values that would be of great
interest to healthcare professionals, students and researchers in the area.
It is proposed that this database be tested in different areas of nu-
trition to ensure its external validity and reliability, for which more de-
scriptive and correlational scientific studies are necessary; in addition to
a constant update of this database, as research in the GI area continues
to advance and develop in the country and the world.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work
reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pablo Hernandez: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analy-
sis, Writing – original draft, Supervision. Vanessa Rojas: Methodology,
7
Measurement: Food 7 (2022) 100048
Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Claret Mata: Methodology,
Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.meafoo.2022.100048.
References
[1] R. Schulz, J. Slavin, Perspective: defining carbohydrate quality for human health and
environmental sustainability, Adv. Nutr. 12 (4) (2021) 1108–1121, doi:10.1093/ad-
vances/nmab050.
[2] D.J. Jenkins, T.M. Wolever, R.H. Taylor, H. Barker, H. Fielden, J.M. Baldwin, et al.,
Glycemic index of foods: a physiological basis for carbohydrate exchange, Am. J.
Clin. Nutr. 34 (1981) 362–366, doi:10.1093/ajcn/34.3.362.
[3] D.S. Ludwig, F.B. Hu, L. Tappy, J. Brand-Miller, Dietary carbohydrates: role of qual-
ity and quantity in chronic disease, BMJ 361 (2018) k2340, doi:10.1136/bmj.k2340.
[4] F.S. Atkinson, J.C. Brand-Miller, K. Foster-Powell, A.E. Buyken, J. Goletzke, Interna-
tional tables of glycemic index and glycemic load values 2021: a systematic review,
Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 114 (5) (2021) 1625–1632, doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqab233.
[5] International Standards Organization. ISO 26642-2010. Food products–
determination of the glycaemic index (GI) and recommendation for food
classification. [Internet]. Geneva (Switzerland): international Organiza-
tion for Standardization; 2010. [Accessed 2022 Jun 23]. Available from:
https://www.iso.org/standard/43633.html.
[6] A. Flood, A.F. Subar, S.G. Hull, T.P. Zimmerman, D.J. Jenkins, A. Schatzkin,
Methodology for adding glycemic load values to the National Cancer Institute
Diet History Questionnaire database, J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 106 (3) (2006) 393–402,
doi:10.1016/j.jada.2005.12.008.
[7] M.L. Neuhouser, L.F. Tinker, C. Thomson, B. Caan, L.V. Horn, L. Snetselaar,
et al., Development of a glycemic index database for food frequency ques-
tionnaires used in epidemiologic studies, J. Nutr. 136 (6) (2006) 1604–1609,
doi:10.1093/jn/136.6.1604.
[8] B.C. Olendzki, Y. Ma, A.L. Culver, A.L. Culver, I.S. Ockene, J.A. Griffith,
et al., Methodology for adding glycemic index and glycemic load values
to 24-hour dietary recall database, Nutrition 22 (11–12) (2006) 1087–1095,
doi:10.1016/j.nut.2006.07.006.
[9] M.E. Similä, L.M. Valsta, M.J. Virtanen, K.A. Hätönen, J. Virtamo, Gly-
caemic index database for the epidemiological Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene
Cancer Prevention (ATBC) Study, Br. J. Nutr. 101 (9) (2009) 1400–1405,
doi:10.1017/S0007114508079634.
[10] M.M. van Bakel, N. Slimani, E.J. Feskens, H. Du, J.W. Beulens, Y.T. van der Schouw,
et al., Methodological challenges in the application of the glycemic index in epidemi-
ological studies using data from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer
and Nutrition, J. Nutr. 139 (3) (2009) 568–575, doi:10.3945/jn.108.097121.
[11] S. Schakel, R. Schauer, J. Himes, L. Harnack, N. Heel, Development of a glycemic in-
dex database for dietary assessment, J. Food Compos. Anal. 21 (Supplement) (2008)
S50–S55, doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2007.02.004.
[12] C.L. Martin, S.P. Murphy, D.L. Au, Compiling glycemic index and glycemic load
values for addition to a food composition database, J. Food Compos. Anal. 21 (6)
(2008) 469–473, doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2008.03.007.
[13] N. Kaartinen, M. Similä, H. Pakkala, T. Korhonen, S. Männistö, L. Valsta, Gly-
caemic index values in the Finnish food composition database: an approach
to standardised value documentation, Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 64 (2010) S68–S72,
doi:10.1038/ejcn.2010.214.
[14] J. Louie, V. Flood, N. Turner, C. Everingham, J. Gwynn, Methodology for
adding glycemic index values to 24-hour recalls, Nutrition 27 (1) (2011) 59–64,
doi:10.1016/j.nut.2009.12.006.
[15] J. Louie, V. Flood, F. Atkinson, A. Barclay, J. Brand-Miller, Methodology for assign-
ing appropriate glycaemic index values to an Australian food composition database,
J. Food Compos. Anal. 38 (2015) 1–6, doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2014.06.002.
[16] J. Louie, A. Barclay, J. Brand-Miller, Assigning glycemic index to foods in a recent
Australian food composition database, Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 70 (2) (2016) 280–281,
doi:10.1038/ejcn.2015.186.
[17] S. Shyam, T. Wai, F. Arshad, Adding glycaemic index and glycaemic load functional-
ity to DietPLUS, a Malaysian food composition database and diet intake calculator,
Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 21 (2) (2012) 201–208.
[18] B. Venn, T. Green, Glycemic index and glycemic load: measurement issues and
their effect on diet-disease relationships, Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 61 (2007) S122–S131,
doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602942.
[19] J.B. Calanche, Influencias culturales en el régimen alimentario del venezolano, An.
Venez. Nutr. 22 (1) (2009) 32–40.
[20] D. Goodman, J.P. González-Rivas, L.M. Jaacks, et al., Dietary intake and car-
diometabolic risk factors among Venezuelan adults: a nationally representative anal-
ysis, BMC Nutr. 6 (2020) 61, doi:10.1186/s40795-020-00362-7.
[21] Instituto Nacional de Nutrición (INN)Tabla De Composición De Alimentos Para Uso
Práctico, Caracas: Gente de maíz, 2012.
[22] M. Izquierdo, E. Oráa, V. De los Rios, R. Drayer, D. Urbina, Índice glucémico e in-
sulinémico de seis frutas venezolanas, Clínica Médica HHC 6 (1) (2001) 19–25.
[23] M. Izquierdo, E. Oraá, Índices glucémicos e insulinémicos de alimentos ricos en car-
bohidratos, Informe Médico 5 (6) (2003) 205–214.
P. Hernandez, V. Rojas and C. Mata
[24] A. Jaimes, D. Carrasquel, V. Castillo, P. Hernandez, Índice glucémico de la Quínoa
(Chenopodium Quinoa) en sujetos sanos de Venezuela, Tribuna del Investigador 17
(2) (2016) 104–110.
[25] M. Schnell, E. Pacheco de Delahaye, Y. Mezones, Metabolic Responses to Venezuelan
corn meal and rice bran supplemented Arepas (breads), Cereal Chem. 82 (1) (2005)
77–80, doi:10.1094/CC-82-0077.
[26] L. Angarita, J. López, D. Aparicio, K. Parra, M. Uzcátegui, V. Céspedes, et al., Efecto
del consumo de una fórmula con carbohidratos de liberación prolongada sobre la
respuesta glicémica e insulina post-prandial en individuos sanos, ALAN 66 (2) (2016)
113–120.
[27] P. Hernandez, C. Mata, M. Lares, Y. Velaco, S. Brito, Índice glicémico y carga
glucémica de las dietas de adultos diabéticos y no diabéticos, An. Venez. Nutr. 26
(1) (2013) 5–13.
[28] J.M. Bengoa, W. Jaffé, Tabla De Composición De Alimentos, Nueva Revisión. Serie
Cuadernos Azules, N° 1. Caracas: INN, 1950.
[29] P. Hernández, A. Carmona, M.S. Tapia, S. Rivas, Dismantling of Institutionalization
and State Policies as Guarantors of Food Security in Venezuela: food Safety Implica-
tions, Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5 (2021) 623603, doi:10.3389/fsufs.2021.623603.
[30] Association of Official Analytical Chemists (A.O.A.C.) Official Methods of Analysis,
15th Edition, AOAC International, Washington, DC, 1990.
[31] Sydney University Glycemic Index Research Service (SUGIRS). Glycemic
index service online database. [Accessed 2022 Jun 23]. Available from:
http://www.glycemicindex.com
[32] T.M.S. Wolever, A. Meynier, A.L. Jenkins, J.C. Brand-Miller, F.S. Atkinson, D. Gen-
dre, S. Leuillet, M. Cazaubiel, B. Housez, S. Vinoy, Glycemic Index and Insulinemic
Index of Foods: an Interlaboratory Study Using the ISO 2010 Method, Nutrients 11
(9) (2019) 2218, doi:10.3390/nu11092218.
[33] FAO/WHO, Carbohydrates in human nutrition: report of a joint FAO/WHO expert
consultation, FAO 66 (1998).
[34] A. Delgado, M. Issaoui, M.C. Vieira, I. Saraiva de Carvalho, A. Fardet, Food Com-
position Databases: does It Matter to Human Health? Nutrients 13 (8) (2021) 2816,
doi:10.3390/nu13082816.
[35] I. Sluijs, J.W. Beulens, Y.T. van der Schouw, D.L. van der A, G. Buckland, A. Kuijsten,
et al., Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, and digestible carbohydrate intake are
not associated with risk of type 2 diabetes in eight European countries, J. Nutr. 143
(1) (2013) 93–99, doi:10.3945/jn.112.165605.
[36] E. Feskens, H. Du, Dietary glycaemic index from an epidemiological point of view,
Int. J. Obes. 30 (2006) S66–S71, doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0803495.
Measurement: Food 7 (2022) 100048
[37] C.M. Chu, M. Lee, Y.H. Hsu, H. Yu, T.Y. Wu, S. Chang, et al., Quality assurance with
an informatics auditing process for Food Composition Tables, J. Food Compos. Anal.
22 (2009) 718–727, doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2009.03.005.
[38] H. Greenfield, D.A.T. Southgate, Food Composition data: Production, Management
and Use, 2nd ed., Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization, 2003.
[39] F. Kazemi, G. Danaei, F. Farzadfar, V. Malik, M. Parsaeian, H. Pouraram, et al.,
Glycemic Index (GI) Values for Major Sources of Dietary Carbohydrates in Iran, Int.
J. Endocrinol. Metab. 18 (3) (2020) e99793, doi:10.5812/ijem.99793.
[40] K. Foster-Powell, S.H.A. Holt, J.C. Brand-Miller, International table of
glycemic index and glycemic load values, Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 76 (2002) 5–56,
doi:10.1093/ajcn/76.1.5.
[41] M. Flavel, M. Jois, B. Kitchen, Potential contributions of the methodology to the
variability of glycaemic index of foods, World J. Diabetes 12 (2) (2021) 108–123,
doi:10.4239/wjd.v12.i2.108.
[42] E. Pérez, O. Gibert, A. Rolland-Sabaté, Y. Jiménez, T. Sánchez, A. Giraldo, et al.,
Physicochemical, functional, and macromolecular properties of waxy yam starches
discovered from "Mapuey" (Dioscorea trifida) genotypes in the Venezuelan Amazon,
J. Agric. Food Chem. 59 (1) (2011) 263–273, doi:10.1021/jf100418r.
[43] M. Landaeta-Jiménez, M. Herrera Cuenca, G. Ramírez, M. Vásquez, Las precarias
condiciones de alimentación de los venezolanos, in: En: Espejo de La Crisis Hu-
manitaria venezolana. Encuesta Nacional De Condiciones de Vida 2017, Freitas
A(Coord.). Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, Caracas, Colección Visión, 2018,
pp. 152–173. ENCOVI 2017.
[44] E. Moghaddam, J.A. Vogt, T.M. Wolever, The effects of fat and protein on
glycemic responses in nondiabetic humans vary with waist circumference, fast-
ing plasma insulin, and dietary fiber intake, J. Nutr. 136 (10) (2006) 2506–2511,
doi:10.1093/jn/136.10.2506.
[45] H. Dodd, S. Williams, R. Brown, B. Venn, Calculating meal glycemic in-
dex by using measured and published food values compared with directly
measured meal glycemic index, Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 94 (4) (2011) 992–996,
doi:10.3945/ajcn.111.012138.
[46] A. Flint, B.K. Møller, A. Raben, D. Pedersen, I. Tetens, J.J. Holst, A. Astrup, The use
of glycaemic index tables to predict glycaemic index of composite breakfast meals,
Br. J. Nutr. 91 (6) (2004) 979–989, doi:10.1079/bjn20041124.
[47] C.J. Henry, H.J. Lightowler, F.L. Kendall, M. Storey, The impact of the addition of
toppings/fillings on the glycaemic response to commonly consumed carbohydrate
foods, Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 60 (2006) 763–769, doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602380.