Otherindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-FRU-108 standard review
Glycaemic index of 17 date varieties
Glycemic indices, glycemic load and glycemic response for seventeen varieties of dates grown in Saudi Arabia.
Overview
AlGeffari MA et al.. Ann Saudi Med 2016 · PMID 27920411 · DOI 10.5144/0256-4947.2016.397
Dates had an average glycaemic index of 55, but the glycaemic load ranged from 8.5 to 24 depending on the variety.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Measure date GI/GL.
- How was the study done?
GI test.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
19 healthy adults.
- What was actually found?
GI 43-75; GL 8.5-24.
- How large was the observed effect?
Mean GI 55.2.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Dates are not 'sugar bombs', but portions count.
- What are the study's limitations?
Healthy volunteers.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports the portion caveat in C-FRU-05.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
It does not test long-term effects.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- AlGeffari MA et al.
- Journal
- Ann Saudi Med
- Year
- 2016
- Identifier
- PMID 27920411 DOI 10.5144/0256-4947.2016.397 · PMC6074203
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 + Crossref works API
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
No conflicts; no commercial funding.
2. Research question
What are the GI, GL and glycaemic response of 17 Saudi date varieties?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Other – Glycaemic index testing study (ISO-type protocol) in healthy volunteers
- Population
19 healthy adults
- Country
Saudi Arabia (Qassim)
- Period
Not stated
- Sample size
19
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Healthy subjects.
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
50 g available carbohydrate from 17 date varieties (Tamer stage)
- Comparator
50 g glucose
- Endpoints
GI, GL
- Statistical methods
Mean (SEM)
5. Actual results
- Results
Mean GI 55.2 (range 42.8-74.6); GL 8.5 (Ajwah) to 24 (Sellaj); GI did not differ significantly between varieties but GL did (P<.001).
- Absolute risks
Not applicable
- Authors' conclusion
Reliable GI/GL values; lower-GI varieties may help lower dietary GI.
6. Strengths
- Many varieties
- Arab-region data
7. Weaknesses
- Healthy subjects only
- Tamer stage only
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- low
- Rationale
Standard GI method.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
GL range shows that portion and variety matter.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Mixed for C-FRU-05: dates are low-to-medium GI, but some varieties carry a high GL, so portions matter for people with diabetes.
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Applicable to imported dates.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Supports the portion caveat.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | low |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
None.
15. Linked fact checks
- Sweet fruits such as dates, grapes, figs and mango need not be avoided; conventional diets wrongly restrict them and push bland fruit. – Studies with mixed or unclear results