Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Glycemic load

Glycemic load (GL) is a dietary metric that quantifies the overall impact of a serving of containing carbohydrates on an individual's glucose levels, accounting for both the type and amount of carbohydrates consumed. It is calculated using the formula GL = ( × grams of available carbohydrate in the serving) / 100, where the (GI) ranks the relative speed at which a food raises sugar compared to pure glucose. Developed in the 1990s by researchers at , including , the concept of GL extends the GI by incorporating portion size to provide a more practical assessment of real-world dietary effects. Foods are generally classified as low GL (under 10), medium GL (11–19), or high GL (20 or more), helping to guide choices for sugar management. Unlike the GI alone, which focuses solely on carbohydrate quality, GL offers a comprehensive tool for evaluating postprandial glycemic responses in conditions like and risk.

Fundamentals

Definition

Glycemic load (GL) quantifies the overall glycemic impact of a serving of by combining the (GI) with the amount of available s, providing a more comprehensive assessment of how the food affects blood glucose levels compared to GI alone, which focuses solely on carbohydrate quality independent of portion size. Carbohydrates, the body's main energy source, are digested into glucose, which enters the bloodstream and elevates blood glucose levels, triggering insulin release from the to facilitate by cells for energy or storage. The rate and extent of this glycemic response vary based on the carbohydrate's digestibility and the total quantity consumed, influencing postprandial blood sugar stability. The concept of glycemic load was introduced in 1997 by researchers at , including , as an advancement over the to better reflect the glycemic effects of actual food servings and dietary patterns in epidemiological studies. This metric addresses the limitation of by incorporating , allowing for a practical evaluation of a food's contribution to overall daily glycemic exposure. values for typical servings are categorized as low (less than 10), medium (11-19), or high (20 or more), enabling consumers and health professionals to prioritize choices that promote gradual blood glucose rises and better metabolic control. These thresholds guide dietary decisions by highlighting foods with balanced carbohydrate impacts relative to portion norms.

Calculation

The glycemic load (GL) is calculated using the formula: \text{GL} = \frac{\text{GI} \times \text{grams of available carbohydrates in a serving}}{100} where the glycemic index (GI) represents the relative percentage rise in blood glucose levels compared to pure glucose (set at 100), and available carbohydrates refer to the digestible portion of total carbohydrates, excluding fiber and other indigestible components. To compute GL for a single food, first identify its GI value from established databases and determine the grams of available carbohydrates in the standard serving size. For example, consider a 120-gram serving of , which has a GI of 72 and contains 11 grams of available s. The calculation proceeds as follows: \text{GL} = \frac{72 \times 11}{100} = 7.92 This value, rounded to 8, classifies as a low GL (typically under 10), illustrating how even moderate- to high-GI foods can have minimal overall impact when carbohydrate content is low. For mixed meals, calculate the GL for each carbohydrate-containing component individually using the same formula, then sum these values to obtain the total meal GL, which provides an estimate of the meal's overall glycemic effect. GI values for computation are sourced from comprehensive international tables, such as those maintained by the Glycemic Index Research Service, which compile data from human testing studies.

Relation to Glycemic Index

Key Differences

The glycemic index (GI) ranks the quality of carbohydrates in foods based on their potential to raise blood glucose levels relative to pure glucose or white bread, using a standardized test portion containing 50 grams of digestible carbohydrates. This approach, however, does not account for the actual amount of carbohydrates typically consumed in a serving, which can lead to misleading assessments of a food's real-world glycemic impact. In contrast, the glycemic load (GL) builds on the GI by multiplying it by the quantity of available carbohydrates in a realistic serving size and dividing by 100, thereby scaling the glycemic response to reflect practical dietary intake and offering a more comprehensive measure of overall blood glucose effects. A key illustration of this distinction is seen in common foods where portion size alters the perceived impact: a medium has a high GI of 85, indicating rapid glucose elevation from its quality, but its typical serving contains about 30 grams of available carbohydrates, resulting in a high GL of 26 that reflects a substantial overall response. By comparison, carrots possess a low GI of 39 due to their slower-digesting carbohydrates, and even a larger serving with roughly 3 grams of carbohydrates per 50 grams yields a low GL of 1, emphasizing minimal blood glucose disturbance despite the volume consumed. These differences address critical limitations of the GI in diverse diets. For instance, the GI assigns a value of 0 to non-carbohydrate foods like , providing no useful insight for mixed meals where such items dilute overall carbohydrate effects, whereas the GL similarly results in 0 but better contextualizes the meal's total glycemic contribution. Moreover, the GI's fixed 50-gram carbohydrate benchmark ignores variable serving sizes in everyday eating, often over- or underestimating impacts for low- or high-carbohydrate foods, a gap that the GL resolves by prioritizing consumed amounts. Empirical evidence from 1990s research underscores 's superiority, with studies by Jenkins et al. introducing as a tool to better capture dietary patterns linked to non-insulin-dependent risk, showing it outperforms in reflecting real meal responses. Subsequent work validated this, demonstrating that explained up to 85% of postprandial glycemia variance in healthy adults, far surpassing predictions from or content alone.

Complementary Applications

In nutrition planning, (GI) and glycemic load (GL) are integrated to provide a more comprehensive assessment of a food's impact on blood glucose levels, where low-GI selections prioritize quality and GL adjustments ensure appropriate portion sizes to prevent unanticipated spikes. This approach allows individuals to select nutrient-dense, low-GI foods like or whole grains as a foundation, then refine servings based on GL calculations to balance overall meal effects. Practical scenarios illustrate this synergy in meal planning, such as pairing a high-GI food like (GI around 73) with low-GL and beans to moderate the meal's total glycemic response and promote steadier energy release. In sports nutrition, moderate-GL meals are recommended pre-exercise to deliver sustained availability without rapid glucose fluctuations, enhancing in activities like or running. Tools combining GI and GL facilitate this integrated application, including mobile apps like the Glycemic Index & Load Tracker that log food intake, calculate GL values, and rate daily glycemic impact for personalized tracking. Additionally, guidelines from organizations such as Diabetes Canada endorse using both metrics in dietary advice, with charts and resources for selecting low-/ options to support balanced nutrition. Meta-analyses since 2000 substantiate the benefits of combined GI/GL monitoring, demonstrating that low-GI/GL dietary patterns improve glycemic control in people with , with reductions in HbA1c by approximately 0.31% compared to higher-GI/GL diets across 29 randomized trials. This combined tracking outperforms GI alone by accounting for portion effects, leading to better overall blood glucose management.

Food Examples and Factors

Glycemic Load Values in Foods

Glycemic load values are presented per typical to mirror realistic dietary consumption patterns, offering practical utility for meal planning and blood glucose management. This method employs everyday portions—such as one medium apple or a single slice of —rather than arbitrary units like 100 grams, as it directly incorporates the content of standard servings for greater precision in assessing glycemic impact. These figures represent averaged data from clinical testing and established databases, though actual values may fluctuate based on variables like ripeness, , or preparation techniques. Contemporary resources, including the 2021 international tables of glycemic index and load, broaden coverage to encompass a variety of global cuisines and emerging plant-based foods, incorporating post-2020 research for enhanced relevance. The table below curates glycemic load values for 25 common foods across key categories, drawn from validated sources for quick reference in dietary decisions.
CategoryFoodServing SizeGlycemic Load
FruitsApple, average120 g (1 medium)6
FruitsBanana, ripe120 g (1 medium)16
FruitsOrange, average120 g (1 medium)4
FruitsPear, raw1 medium4
FruitsWatermelon1 cup8
VegetablesCarrots, average80 g (½ cup)2
VegetablesSweet potato, average150 g22
VegetablesBroccoli, cooked91 g (1 cup)1
GrainsBrown rice, average150 g (1 cup)16
GrainsWhite rice, average150 g (1 cup)30
GrainsBarley, boiled150 g (typical)12
GrainsQuinoa, boiled185 g (1 cup)21
BreadsWhite bread, average1 large slice (30 g)10
BreadsWhole wheat bread, average30 g (1 slice)9
BreadsPumpernickel bread30 g (1 slice)7
PastaSpaghetti, wholemeal, boiled180 g17
PastaMacaroni, average180 g23
CerealsOatmeal, average250 g (1 cup)13
CerealsCornflakes, average30 g23
LegumesChickpeas, average150 g3
LegumesKidney beans, average150 g7
LegumesLentils, boiled198 g (1 cup)5
DairyMilk, full fat250 mL5
DairyReduced-fat yogurt w/ fruit200 g11
SnacksPotato chips, average50 g12
SnacksPeanuts, average50 g0
Data compiled from Harvard Health Publications and the Institute, with select updates from the 2021 international tables.

Influences on Glycemic Load

The glycemic load () of a can vary significantly due to methods, which alter the availability and digestibility of carbohydrates. grains, such as converting whole grains to white flour, removes and , increasing the proportion of readily digestible and thereby elevating the GL compared to unrefined counterparts. For instance, replacing refined grain products with whole grains has been shown to decrease overall dietary GL by reducing rapid carbohydrate absorption. This effect stems from the higher content in whole grains, which slows breakdown, though the precise GL increase depends on the extent of . Preparation techniques further influence GL by modifying starch structure and digestibility. Cooking methods like potatoes lead to greater and cell rupture, resulting in a higher GI (typically around 82 for boiled white potatoes, leading to GL ~25 for a 150 g serving) compared to frying, where surface lipid-starch interactions form more , lowering the GI (e.g., 64 for , GL ~22 for a similar serving). Pairing -rich foods with fats or proteins during s also mitigates GL by delaying gastric emptying and slowing glucose absorption; for example, adding or protein to a starchy can blunt the postprandial glycemic response through enhanced insulin secretion and reduced digestion rate. These modifications highlight how meal composition can practically lower effective GL without changing the food's inherent content. Biological factors inherent to foods contribute to GL variability by affecting carbohydrate breakdown. Fruit ripeness plays a key role, as seen in bananas where under-ripe stages contain 80-90% versus free sugars in over-ripe ones, yielding a lower GI (43) and thus lower GL for unripe bananas compared to 74 and higher GL for ripe, due to slower starch-to-glucose conversion. Higher fiber content, particularly soluble types, similarly reduces GL by increasing in the gut and impeding access to starches, with studies showing viscous fibers lower postprandial glucose responses in meals. Anti-nutritional factors like phytates, found in grains and , bind to starches and enzymes, further decreasing digestibility and GL; for example, higher levels correlate with reduced hydrolysis rates and lower glycemic indices in varieties. Environmental and quality aspects have subtler effects on GL. Comparisons between organic and conventional foods show minimal differences in carbohydrate quality or glycemic properties, with systematic reviews finding no significant impacts on relevant nutrients that would alter GL. Storage conditions, however, can influence GL through starch retrogradation, where cooling cooked starchy foods like rice at 4°C for 24 hours increases resistant starch from about 7.5 g/100g to 12 g/100g, substantially lowering the glycemic response by resisting small intestine digestion. This process reverses somewhat upon reheating but retains a net reduction in GL compared to freshly cooked equivalents.

Health Implications

Effects on Blood Glucose Control

The glycemic load (GL) of a meal influences blood glucose control primarily through its impact on the rate and extent of carbohydrate digestion and absorption in the small intestine. High-GL foods, which combine high glycemic index with substantial carbohydrate portions, result in rapid hydrolysis of starches and sugars, leading to quick glucose influx into the bloodstream and subsequent hyperglycemia. This acute rise stimulates pancreatic beta cells to secrete large amounts of insulin, causing hyperinsulinemia, whereas low-GL foods promote slower glucose release due to factors like fiber content or lower carbohydrate density, resulting in more stable postprandial glycemia. In the short term, high-GL meals elevate postprandial blood glucose levels more significantly than low-GL equivalents, often producing peaks within 30-60 minutes and sustained elevations over 2 hours, as measured by glucose curves in controlled feeding studies. For instance, individuals exhibit exaggerated glucose excursions after high-GL meals compared to normal-weight counterparts, contributing to greater glycemic variability throughout the day. Low-GL meals, by contrast, attenuate these spikes, reducing the amplitude of glucose fluctuations and supporting better immediate insulin dynamics. Over the long term, habitual consumption of high-GL diets can impair insulin sensitivity through mechanisms involving chronic and repeated , potentially leading to beta-cell exhaustion from sustained demand. demonstrate that prolonged high-GL feeding induces basal and diminished glucose disposal, reflecting reduced peripheral insulin . In humans, epidemiological evidence from the indicates that women in the highest quintile of dietary GL had a 1.5-fold increased risk (RR 1.47, 95% CI: 1.16-1.86) of developing compared to those in the lowest quintile. A combination of high GL and low cereal fiber intake further increased the risk 2.5-fold (RR 2.50), suggesting cumulative effects on beta-cell function and overall glycemic homeostasis. Meta-analyses of intervention trials further show that shifting to low-GI/GL diets lowers (HbA1c) by approximately 0.3% (mean difference -0.31%, 95% CI: -0.42% to -0.19%), underscoring the role of GL in long-term adaptations.

Role in Disease Prevention and Management

High dietary glycemic load (GL) has been consistently associated with an increased risk of in prospective cohort studies and meta-analyses. A comprehensive assessment of causal relations from multiple meta-analyses of prospective studies indicates that diets with high GL confer a (RR) of 1.26 (95% CI: 1.15–1.37) for when comparing highest versus lowest categories of intake, representing a 26% increased risk after adjustment for confounders such as age, , and . More recent multinational cohort analyses, including data from over 127,000 participants in the PURE study, reinforce this link, showing that individuals in the highest quintile of GL intake have a significantly elevated (HR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.06-1.37) for incident compared to those in the lowest quintile, with stronger associations in individuals with higher . In contrast, low-GL dietary patterns aid in glycemic management for individuals with ; systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials demonstrate that low-GL diets improve overall glycemic control, reducing HbA1c levels by approximately 0.5% without increasing hypoglycemic events. Regarding , high GL intake is linked to elevated coronary heart disease (CHD) risk through mechanisms involving and impaired endothelial function, as evidenced by large-scale cohort data. In the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition () study, a pan-European cohort of over 137,000 participants, high GL was associated with an HR of 1.16 (95% CI: 1.02–1.31) for CHD events when comparing the highest versus lowest quintiles, with a dose-response HR of 1.18 (95% CI: 1.07–1.29) per 50 g/day increase in GL. Meta-analyses pooling and other cohorts further quantify this as an RR of 1.25 (95% CI: 1.10–1.42) for high versus low GL categories, highlighting stronger associations in overweight individuals (BMI ≥25 kg/m²). These findings underscore the role of GL in prevention strategies, particularly in populations with cardiometabolic risk factors. For weight management, low-GL diets promote satiety and facilitate greater reductions in calorie intake compared to traditional low-fat approaches, supporting obesity prevention and treatment. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing low-GL to low-fat diets in obese adults show that low-GL interventions lead to 1–2 kg greater body fat loss over 6–12 months, attributed to enhanced postprandial satiety and reduced hunger signals. For instance, in a multicenter RCT of 73 obese young adults, the low-GL diet led to greater weight loss than the low-fat diet among those with high insulin secretion (-5.8 kg vs. -1.2 kg at 18 months), attributed to enhanced postprandial satiety. A separate study reported 7% greater satiation on low-GL diets but did not measure weight loss. These effects are mediated by stabilized blood glucose levels, which briefly reference improved short-term control without altering long-term physiological mechanisms. In other conditions, low-GL diets show potential benefits for (PCOS) and prevention, though evidence is tempered by confounding factors like overall diet quality and lifestyle. Meta-analyses of RCTs in women with PCOS indicate that low-GL interventions improve insulin sensitivity, reduce androgen levels, and enhance reproductive profiles, with weighted mean differences in fasting insulin of -2.5 μU/mL compared to higher-GL controls. For , prospective studies and meta-analyses link high GL to increased risk, with an (OR) of 1.28 (95% CI: 1.14–1.44) for highest versus lowest intake categories, potentially due to chronic ; however, these associations are moderated by intake and adherence in post-2015 epidemiological data. Overall, while promising, these roles require consideration of holistic dietary patterns to mitigate confounders.

References

  1. [1]
    Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load | Linus Pauling Institute
    More information) The glycemic load (GL) is obtained by multiplying the quality of carbohydrate in a given food (GI) by the amount of carbohydrate in a serving ...Summary · Glycemic Index · Glycemic Load · Disease Prevention
  2. [2]
    The lowdown on glycemic index and glycemic load - Harvard Health
    Aug 2, 2023 · The glycemic index (GI) assigns a numeric score to a food based on how drastically it makes your blood sugar rise.
  3. [3]
    The concept of low glycemic index and glycemic load foods as ... - NIH
    Glycemic Load (GL) · GL accounts for how much of carbohydrate is in the food and how each gram of carbohydrate in the food raises blood glucose levels. · One unit ...Results · Glycemic Load (gl) · Other Factors
  4. [4]
    Glycemic index, glycemic load, and risk of type 2 diabetes
    To evaluate the hypothesis that high dietary glycemic load would increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, we used data from our large prospective studies of women ...
  5. [5]
    Physiology, Carbohydrates - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
    As carbohydrates are consumed, the blood sugar levels increase, stimulating the pancreas to secrete insulin. Insulin signals the body's cells to absorb glucose ...Introduction · Issues of Concern · Cellular Level · Function
  6. [6]
    Glycemic Load - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    Glycemic load is defined as the glycemic index of a food multiplied by the carbohydrate content in 100 grams of that food item, indicating its overall impact on ...
  7. [7]
    FAQs - Glycemic Index
    It's the best way to predict blood glucose values of different types and amounts of food. The formula is: GL = (GI x the amount of carbohydrate) divided by 100.
  8. [8]
    International tables of glycemic index and glycemic load values 2021
    GL values estimated for studies or counseling should be calculated by multiplying the known amount of carbohydrate contained in the specified serving size by ...Editor's Choice · Introduction · Discussion<|control11|><|separator|>
  9. [9]
    Glycemic index of foods: a physiological basis for carbohydrate ...
    Glycemic index of foods: a physiological basis for carbohydrate exchange ... H C Newman, A L Jenkins, D V Goff. PMID: 6259925; DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/34.3.362 ...
  10. [10]
    Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of NIDDM in men - PubMed - NIH
    These findings support the hypothesis that diets with a high glycemic load and a low cereal fiber content increase risk of NIDDM in men.
  11. [11]
    Glycemic Index (GI) or Glycemic Load (GL) and Dietary Interventions ...
    May 27, 2020 · The insulin index of a food represents the elevation of the insulin concentration in the blood during the 2 h period after the food is ingested.<|control11|><|separator|>
  12. [12]
    [PDF] The Glycemic Index Guide | Diabetes Canada
    The glycemic index (GI) ranks foods by how fast they raise blood sugar. Low GI (55 or less) is best, medium (56-69) sometimes, and high (70+) least often.
  13. [13]
    [PDF] The Glycaemic Index and Sports Performance
    Manipulating the GI of meals may be useful in sports nutrition to optimise carbohydrate availability for exercise. This is particularly useful for sports or.
  14. [14]
  15. [15]
    Effect of low glycaemic index or load dietary patterns on ... - The BMJ
    Aug 5, 2021 · Effect of low glycaemic index or load dietary patterns on glycaemic control and cardiometabolic risk factors in diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis
  16. [16]
    Glycemic index for 60+ foods - Harvard Health
    Apr 16, 2024 · The glycemic index is a value assigned to foods based on how quickly and how high those foods cause increases in blood glucose levels.
  17. [17]
  18. [18]
    [The role of glycemic index concept in carbohydrate metabolism]
    In general, low GI foods include most fruits and vegetables, beans and legumes, and whole grain products. Refined grain products and potatoes have a high GI.
  19. [19]
    Dietary glycemic load and atherothrombotic risk - PubMed
    We conclude that decreasing dietary GL by reducing the intake of high-glycemic beverages and replacing refined grain products and potatoes with minimally ...
  20. [20]
    Magnesium may mediate the favorable impact of whole grains on ...
    This phenomenon may be partially explained by the lower glycemic indices of some whole grain food products in comparison to their fiber-depleted analogs.Missing: load | Show results with:load
  21. [21]
    The Glycemic Index and Human Health with an Emphasis on Potatoes
    Aug 2, 2022 · Baked tubers showed a significant reduction in GI values as their resistant starch (RS) values increased when stored at 4 °C after cooking [14].
  22. [22]
    Effects of Protein, Fat and Both Protein and Fat on Glycemic ...
    Addition of protein and fat have shown inconsistently delay the glycemic response to a carbohydrate load. Methods. Thirteen healthy adults, age 24.7 ± 4y, BMI ...
  23. [23]
    Impact of Fat, Protein, and Glycemic Index on Postprandial Glucose ...
    May 12, 2015 · All studies examining the effect of fat (n = 7), protein (n = 7), and GI (n = 7) indicated that these dietary factors modify postprandial glycemia.
  24. [24]
    Influence of ripeness of banana on the blood glucose and insulin ...
    In under-ripe bananas starch constitutes 80-90% of the carbohydrate content, which as the banana ripens changes into free sugars.Missing: load | Show results with:load
  25. [25]
    The Effects of Soluble Dietary Fibers on Glycemic Response - NIH
    Dec 6, 2022 · Dietary fiber (DF), especially viscous DF, can contribute to a reduction in the glycemic response resulting from the consumption of carbohydrate-rich foods.
  26. [26]
    Phytic acid content may affect starch digestibility and glycemic index ...
    Nov 26, 2019 · In principle, the greater the amount of PA, the lower is the rate of starch hydrolysis. It is reflected in the lower glycemic index (GI) value ...
  27. [27]
    effect of phytic acid on in vitro rate of starch digestibility and blood ...
    The effect of phytic acid on starch digestibility was studied in vitro and related to the blood glucose response (glycemic index) in healthy volunteers. The ...
  28. [28]
    A Systematic Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food ... - NIH
    The current review aims to systematically assess the evidence related to human health outcomes when an organic diet is consumed in comparison to its ...Missing: glycemic | Show results with:glycemic
  29. [29]
    Influence of resistant starch resulting from the cooling of rice ... - Nature
    Apr 16, 2022 · The cooling of rice after cooking causes retrogradation of starch, which becomes a non-absorbable product in the human digestive tract.
  30. [30]
    The effects of meal glycemic load on blood glucose levels of adults ...
    The high GL meals were more effective to increase the blood glucose level than low GL meal, especially on overweight people.
  31. [31]
    High Glycemic Index Starch Promotes Hypersecretion of Insulin and ...
    In rats, prolonged feeding of high glycemic index (GI) starch results in basal hyperinsulinemia and an elevated insulin response to an intravenous glucose ...High Glycemic Index Starch... · Results · Literature Cited
  32. [32]
    Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of non-insulin ... - PubMed - NIH
    Our results support the hypothesis that diets with a high glycemic load and a low cereal fiber content increase risk of diabetes in women.
  33. [33]
    Effects comparison between low glycemic index diets and ... - PubMed
    Our results suggest that low-GI diets achieve a more beneficial effect on glycemic control than that of high-GI foods diets.
  34. [34]
    Dietary Glycemic Index and Load and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes
    In this analysis, all nine of the Hill's criteria were met for GI and GL indicating that we can be confident of a role for GI and GL as causal factors ...
  35. [35]
    Low glycaemic index, or low glycaemic load, diets for diabetes mellitus
    A low‐GI diet can improve glycaemic control in diabetes without compromising hypoglycaemic events.
  36. [36]
    Glycemic index, glycemic load, and risk of coronary heart disease
    A 2019 meta-analysis of prospective studies found that high dietary GI and GL were strongly associated with increased CHD risk in both sexes (12).
  37. [37]
    Effects of a Low–Glycemic Load vs Low-Fat Diet in Obese Young ...
    May 16, 2007 · In the full cohort (left panel), weight loss did not differ significantly between participants assigned to the low–glycemic load diet vs the ...
  38. [38]
    Low glycemic load experimental diet more satiating than high ...
    May 7, 2012 · Participants reported 7% greater satiation on the low GL vs. the high GL diet (P = 0.03) and fewer food cravings on the low GL vs. the high GL ...Missing: RCT | Show results with:RCT
  39. [39]
    Effects of Dietary Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load on ... - PubMed
    We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to summarize evidence on impacts of dietary glycemic index (GI) or ...
  40. [40]
    Glycemic index, glycemic load, and cancer risk: a meta-analysis
    This comprehensive meta-analysis of GI and GL and cancer risk suggested an overall direct association with colorectal and endometrial cancer.