https://doi.org/10.5812/thrita.7222

Dietary fiber, glycemic index, and glycemic load in relation to breast cancer in Iran

authors:

avatar Ghazaleh Eslamian 1 , * , avatar Sara Amiri 1 , avatar Mahtab Shakeri 2

Students’ Research Committee, Faculty of Nutrition and Food Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, IR Iran, Tehran
Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, IR Iran, Tehran
Thrita: Vol.2, issue 1; 82-88
published online: February 2, 2013
article type: Research Article
received: July 12, 2012
revised: August 20, 2012
accepted: August 27, 2012

how to cite: Eslamian G, Amiri S, Shakeri M. Dietary fiber, glycemic index, and glycemic load in relation to breast cancer in Iran. Thrita J Neu. 2013;2(1): 82-88. https://doi.org/10.5812/thrita.7222.

Abstract

Background:

Habitual consumption of diets with a high glycemic index (GI) and a high glycemic load (GL) may influence breast cancer, but consistent evidence is lacking in this regard.

Objectives:

In this hospital-based case-control study, we evaluated the contribution of GI, GL and dietary fiber to the risk of breast cancer in Iran, 2011-2012.

Patients and Methods:

Data on lifestyle, diet and family history were collected from the 87 newly diagnosed breast cancer premenopausal patients and 198 five-year age-matched controls. Usual dietary intake was assessed by means of a 168-item semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), which was interviewer-administered. Dietary average GI and GL were calculated by GI of Iranian food table and international tables of GI and GL values: 2008. Multivariate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for GI and GL intake were adjusted for age and major relevant covariates based on the review of literature.

Results:

Mean ± SD GI was 59 ± 17 among control patients and 70 ± 16 among breast cancer cases; the corresponding numbers for GL were 159 ± 45 and 189 ± 44, respectively. The multivariate adjusted comparing the highest tertile of dietary GI and GL with the lowest tertile were 2.11 (95% CI 1.33-3.57; p-test for trend = 0.027) and 2.84 (95% CI 2.93-4.11; p-test for trend = 0.037) respectively with a significant trend. Fiber intake was suggestively inversely associated with breast cancer (OR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.34-0.88; p-test for trend = 0.015).

Conclusions:

Our results suggest that high dietary levels of GI and GL and low fiber intake may have unfavorable effects on breast cancer.

1.Background

Breast cancer incidence and mortality were reported to be higher among women in developed countries (1). However, Asian developing countries had a lower incidence of breast cancer and it is considered that more deprived subgroups are at much lower risk (2, 3). Prevalence of breast cancer in Iran is estimated to be 0.15% (2).

Multiple factors, including environmental and/or genetic factors, could be associated with the pathogenesis of breast cancer (4). Nutritional risk factors for breast cancer have been identified in previous studies (5, 6). Although changes in the quantity and quality of dietary fat have received considerable attention in recent years, the role of carbohydrates is not clearly indicated (7). The glycemic index (GI) is a ranking of carbohydrate-containing foods consumed in isoglucidic amounts, based on the postprandial blood glucose response compared with a standard food, usually glucose or white bread. Since both the quantity and quality of the ingested carbohydrates affect the postprandial glycemic response, an additional measure called glycemic load (GL), is also usually used, which is the product of the GI value and the total carbohydrate content of the portion of food ingested (8). High GI meals contain fast absorbable carbohydrates and result in high blood glucose levels and greater insulin demand (9). Hyperinsulinemia could stimulate the insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), a cell proliferative hormone associated with increased risk of several cancers (10-13).

Since disease risk is related to insulinemia, sex hormone bioavailability and insulin like growth factor 1, the role of GI and GL have been previously questioned in the etiology of breast cancer. A previous study determined the major dietary patterns among adult women living in Tehran and showed that unhealthy dietary pattern included high consumption of refined grains and sugars (14). Some studies have indicated the association between intake of meals high in dietary GI and GL, and an increased risk of breast cancer (15-19), although the issue remains open to discussion (20, 21).

2. Objectives

Considering the fact that nutrition is coming to the fore as a major environmental factor which may affect breast cancer, we analyzed the association of GI, GL, total fiber and carbohydrate intakes with breast cancer in a case– control study conducted in Iran.

3. Patients and Methods

3.1. Study Design

From February 2011 to March 2012, incident and histologically confirmed cases of breast cancer were identified from hospital records in the three general hospitals of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science. All cases were considered for inclusion if breast cancer diagnosis was established less than six months before interview and only if no history of other concomitant cancers was evident. A sample of hospitalized controls was recruited using frequency-matched to cases by age (± 5 years). All were hospitalized for non-neoplastic conditions in the same hospital, were not taking hormone therapy in the three months before recruitment, had not a history of cancer, had not current chronic or acute liver disease, and had not undergone bilateral ovariectomy. Also, control group was consisted of patients admitted to the same hospital as the cases for a wide spectrum of acute non-neoplastic diseases that were unrelated to smoking (i.e. chronic obstructive bronchitis and cardiovascular disease), alcohol abuse (i.e. liver cirrhosis and pancreatitis) or long-term modification of diet. Controls were hospitalized mainly because of the following conditions: traumas, surgical conditions (mostly abdominal such as acute appendicitis and kidney stones), non-traumatic orthopedic conditions (mostly disk disorders and back pain) and miscellaneous diseases (including acute eye, nose, skin and throat disorders).

Cases and controls were interviewed in person by trained professional interviewers. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Shahid Beheshti University of medical science, Iran. Before enrollment, informed consent was obtained from each volunteer.

3.2. Measurements

Age of diagnosis for cases and age of participants were identified at the time of case and control recruitment. Data collected included demographic information, medical, occupational, and family histories and lifetime smoking of cigarettes.

Weight was measured with subjects standing without shoes on digital scales (Soehnle, Germany) and was recorded to the nearest 100 g. Height was measure while subjects were in a standing position without shoes, using a non-stretch tape meter fixed to a wall and was recorded to the nearest 0.5 cm. Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared at the time of interview.

Dietary information was collected by trained dietitians using a 125-item semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), which assesses past nutritional intake for a one-year period, generally the year before the interview for controls and the year before diagnosis for cases. The FFQ was used in the first prospective cohort study of cardiovascular risk factors in Iran, Tehran lipid and glucose study (TLGS), and has been validated for multiple diet records for use in epidemiologic studies (22). The FFQ estimates usual dietary intake, providing a measure of the average intake of 168 food items and nutrients, based on a given serving of each food item on a daily (i.e bread), weekly (i.e. rice or meat) or monthly (i.e. fish) basis. We altered the dietary data into average monthly intake for every food item, by assuming one month equal to 30.5 days. Data on individual alcohol consumption were not collected according to cultural barricades; hence, it did not compromise the analysis. Food intakes reported in household measures were converted into grams of food, in order to process the food for analysis with nutritionist IV software (23).

To calculate GL and GI, we used the GI of Iranian food table and international tables of GI and GL values 2008 (24, 25). Because the Iranian Food Table of GI is incomplete, the rest of the meals and soft drinks were analyzed for their GI content using the international tables of GI and GL values: 2008. However, Iranian Food Table of GI was used for some foods (like Iranian bread) that are not listed in the international tables of GI and GL values: 2008. Food items for which a GI had not been reported were attributed to the GI of the nearest comparable food (i.e., tangerines were assigned the GI of oranges) or were calculated by using recipes. Lack of information about the GI of vegetables and legumes was resolved by calculating a mean GI for usually consumed vegetables and legumes in our study. The GI is based on the postprandial blood glucose response compared with white bread. The overall dietary GI was estimated for each participant by calculating the weighted average GI of all food items eaten by using the carbohydrate intake from that item (g/d) as a weighting factor. The resulting value denotes the overall quality of carbohydrate intake for each participant. Meanwhile, the average dietary GL was calculated by multiplying the overall dietary GI by the total amount of carbohydrate, which was then divided by 100. Each unit of GL denotes the equivalent of one gram carbohydrate from glucose (26).

3.3. Statistical Analysis

Chi-square test was used to compare proportions, and analysis of variance was used to compare means to assess the differences of distribution of categorical variables. Results were presented as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) compared with the lowest GI and GL category. Age adjusted and multivariable adjusted ORs, including age, BMI, non-carbohydrate energy intake, fruit and vegetable consumption, using oral contraceptive, and smoking and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated by using logistic regression. All P-values were based on two-sided tests and were considered statistically significant if < 0.05. Meanwhile, data were filtered to remove GI, GL, fiber or carbohydrate extreme outliers separately. All analyses were conducted using the Social Sciences statistical software package version 17 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

4. Results

The study population included 90 premenopausal women with breast cancer and 200 controls. For analysis, five participants were excluded because total energy intake were either > 3 or < 3SD from the mean (n = 2), missing Body Mass Index (BMI) (n = 1) and poor responses in regard to dietary questions (n = 2), leaving 87 cases with breast cancer and 198 controls for final analysis.

Table 1 shows the distribution of the 87 cases and 198 controls on selected demographic variables and risk factors for breast cancer. The mean age of the cases and controls was 36.5 (SD = 7.9) and 36.8 (SD = 7.1) years, respectively, and their average BMI was 20.1 (SD = 2.9) and 26.3 (SD = 3.9) kg/m2, respectively (P value < 0.001). Tobacco consumption and years of education at time of interview were not significantly different between cases and controls (P value = 0.314 and 0.224 respectively). Cases used oral contraceptive significantly more than controls (P value = 0.031).

Table 1

Selected Demographic Characteristics Among Cases With Breast Cancer and Matched Controls

CharacteristicCasesControlsP Valuea
 55No.%No.% 
Age    1.00
< 3543499749 
≥ 35445110151 
BMI    < 0.001
< 2572839146 
≥ 25151710754 
Smoking history    0.314
Never smoker23265528 
Ex-smoker, pack-year < 1022255025 
Ex-smoker, pack-year ≥ 1018214020 
Current smoker, pack-year < 2019223819 
Current smoker, pack-year ≥ 2056158 
Oral contraceptive user    0.031
Yes56658241 
No313511659 
Number of live births    0.821
< 337438945 
≥ 3505710955 
Years of education    0.224
025296935 
1-5505710553 
5-1112142412 

aAll statistical tests were two-sided. Chi-square statistics were used to compare proportions

The mean intakes of dietary factors by cases and controls are listed in Table 2. There were no differences between breast cancer cases and controls in mean values of total energy, fat, starch and protein intakes. Mean ± SD dietary GI and GL levels were significantly higher among breast cancer cases compared to controls (P value < 0.05). On the other hand, controls consumed significantly more dietary fiber than their case peers (P value < 0.001).

Table 2

Mean ± Standard Deviation of Dietary Factors Among Cases With Breast Cancer and Matched Controls

Dietary factorsCasesControlsP value
Total energy intake, kcal/day1938.2 ± 732.12324.6 ± 477.40.089
Carbohydrate, g263.1 ± 78.2303.2 ± 87.90.062
Glycemic index70.13 ± 16.7259.86 ± 17.660.007
Glycemic load189.14 ± 44.63159 ± 45.190.003
Dietary fiber, g14.2 ± 5.039.3 ± 10.7< 0.001
Protein, g84.0 ± 42.397.9 ± 24.90.134
Fat, g61.5 ± 39.779.9 ± 26.80.286

Table 3 shows crude and multivariate ORs (95% CIs) for breast cancer according to the tertile of each dietary carbohydrate variable. The multivariate adjusted comparing of the highest tertile of dietary GI and GL with the lowest tertile were 2.11 (95% CI, 1.33-3.57; p-test for trend = 0.027) and 2.84 (95% CI, 2.93-4.11; p-test for trend = 0.037) respectively, with a significant trend. Mutually adjustment for GL did not noticeably change the observed association of GI with breast cancer risk (p-test for trend = 0.035). Moreover, mutually adjustment for GI did not noticeably change the observed association of GL with breast cancer risk (p-test for trend = 0.045). A protective independent effect was observed for the highest tertile of total fiber intake (OR: 0.79, CI, 0.34-0.88; p-test for trend = 0.015). Sugar was directly associated with breast cancer risk (OR: 2.29, CI, 1.39-3.04; p-test for trend = 0.041). No significant association was observed between carbohydrate intake and breast cancer, with multivariate adjusted ORs of 1.81 (95% CI, 0.69-3.33) for the third tertile compared with the lowest (p-test for trend = 0.615). There were no significant associations or dose–response trends for higher intakes of starch (OR: 0.59, CI, 0.33-3.25; p-test for trend = 0.135). After adjusting for Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), Oral Contraceptive Pills (OCP), age at first delivery, age at menarche and physical activity, the significant associations were not changed.

Table 3

Odds Ratios (95% Confidence Intervals) for Breast Cancer According to Tertile of Each Dietary Carbohydrate Variable

Tertile of Intake
 Tertile 1 (Lowest)Tertile 2Tertile 3 (Highest)P Value
GIa    
Number of Case/Control24/6628/6635/66 
Minimally-adjusted ORb1.01.39 (0.94-2.32)2.07 (1.77-3.34)0.044
Multivariate ORc1.01.73 (0.89-2.82)2.11 (1.33-3.57)0.027
GLa    
Number of Case/Control22/6627/6638/66 
Minimally-adjusted ORb1.02.33 (1.93-3.48)2.22 (1.67-3.15)0.003
Multivariate ORc1.02.14 (1.85-3.32)2.84 (2.93-4.11)0.037
Total carbohydrates, g    
Number of Case/Control27/6628/6632/66 
Minimally-adjusted ORb1.00.34 (0.14-1.54)0.55 (0.28-1.26)0.058
Multivariate ORc1.01.77 (0.91-2.45)1.81 (0.69-3.33)0.615
Starch, g    
Number of Case/Control27/6629/6631/66 
Minimally-adjusted ORb1.00.53 (0.34-1.89)0.72 (0.56-2.39)0.465
Multivariate ORc1.01.27 (0.55-2.23)0.59 (0.33-3.25)0.135
Sugar,.g    
Number of Case/Control25/6629/6633/66 
Minimally-adjusted ORb1.01.21 (0.82-2.34)2.14 (1.89-3.03)0.029
Multivariate ORc1.01.67 (0.78-2.33)2.29 (1.39-3.04)0.041
Total fiber, g    
Number of Case/Control38/6629/6620/66 
Minimally-adjusted ORb1.00.81 (0.54-1.19)0.55 (0.33-0.74)0.006
Multivariate ORc1.00.87 (0.71-1.22)0.79 (0.34-0.88)0.015

aAbbreviations: GI, glycemic index;GL, glycemic load

bORs and 95% CI adjusted for age and sex.

cMultivariate ORs and 95% CI adjusted for age, BMI, non-carbohydrate energy intake, fruit and vegetable consumption, using oral contraceptive, and smoking.

5. Discussion

The present study, based on a valid and detailed FFQ, confirms the existence of a direct relation between GI and GL, and breast cancer risk; while high intake of fiber was associated with a significantly decreased risk of breast cancer.

Results from this hospital-based case-control study support previous cohort studies that provided evidence on increased risk of breast cancer with decreased consumption of refined carbohydrate. Consumption of sweet carbohydrates with high GI or GL and low fiber which are quickly absorbed, are capable of elevating blood glucose and insulin level to a greater amount (16-18, 27).

A few case-control studies were conducted to investigate the link between dietary carbohydrates, GL, or GI and breast cancer (28-30), but most of such studies have not supported the possible link between GI or GL and increased breast cancer risk (19-21, 31-35). However, McCann et al., in subgroup analysis observed a significant reduction in postmenopausal breast cancer risk with high GI and GL pattern scores combined (19).

A high GI or GL diet may increase breast cancer risk through an alteration of cell cycle kinetics (36), the inhibition of apoptosis (37), a gonadotropic effect (insulin stimulates the synthesis of ovarian androgens). Also, the metabolic effects on the liver, where insulin inhibits the synthesis of sex hormone–binding globulin and IGF-1– binding proteins 1 and 2, (thus increasing the bioavailability of both sex hormones and IGF-1) is of great importance (10-13). Dietary fiber may have the potential role to alter inflammatory processes in the tumor microenvironment, as there are already well-known associations of fiber and decreased plasma levels of the inflammatory cytokines IL-6 and TNF-α-R2, and decreased concentrations of high sensitivity C-reactive protein (38, 39). Moreover, evidence suggests that dietary fiber intake improves breast cancer prognosis by reducing estrogen levels (40). Furthermore, dietary fiber can play a role in modulating insulin resistance through controlling postprandial glucose levels and improving insulin sensitivity (41).

The present study was the first study which evaluated the contribution of GI, GL and fiber to the risk of breast cancer in Iran. The strength of this study is the high participation rate of patients in our research (more than 90%). Studies in developing countries can offer unique opportunities to investigate the association between diet and cancer (42). Also, potential limitations of the study included reliability and validity of the estimation of average GI and GL, which were based on the relatively limited number of food items. Recall bias is unlikely given that the association between food glycemic levels and breast cancer was not evident at the time of interviews, since we registered incident cases. Measurement bias was unavoidable, because of using FFQ to assess dietary intake. This might have led us to underestimate the associations. However, we used a validated FFQ and excluded the participants who were misreporting (under or over reporting) their energy intake. Among the possible limitations of the present study, there is the use of hospital controls, whose may have different dietary habits and lifestyle as compared with the general population (43). However, we excluded control subjects admitted for conditions associated with tobacco smoking or long-term modifications of diet. Moreover, the common hospital settings for cases and controls may have increased comparability of dietary history among subjects and the questionnaire was satisfactorily reproducible and reliable (44). Another limitation of this study is the small sample size. Because of this limitation, we could not report our results by stratification for BMI and waist circumference, so we suggest conducting similar studies with appropriate number of subjects.

Despite such limitations, we have shown that diets with a high GI or GL may increase risk of breast cancer, whereas high consumption of fiber may decrease the risk. In conclusion, our study presents that a high-GI and GL, Low-fiber diet is directly related to increased risk of breast cancer, supporting the hypothesis that a diet rich in refined cereals and sugar through hyperglycemia and subsequent increase of insulin demand is possibly associated with breast cancer.

Acknowledgements

References

  • 1.

    Nagel G, Wedding U, Rohrig B, Katenkamp D. The impact of comorbidity on the survival of postmenopausal women with breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2004;130(11):664-70. [PubMed ID: 15300426]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-004-0594-3.

  • 2.

    Rezaianzadeh A, Heydari ST, Hosseini H, Haghdoost AA, Barooti E, Lankarani KB. Prevalence of breast cancer in a defined population of iran. Iran Red Cres Med J. 2011;13(9):647-50. [PubMed ID: 22737539].

  • 3.

    Cotran RS, Kumar V, Collins T, Robbins SL. Robbins pathologic basis of disease. . 6th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1999. [PubMed ID: 408121].

  • 4.

    Nelson HD, Zakher B, Cantor A, Fu R, Griffin J, O'Meara ES, et al. Risk factors for breast cancer for women aged 40 to 49 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annal Intern Med. 2012;156(9):635-48. [PubMed ID: 22547473].

  • 5.

    Hauner D, Janni W, Rack B, Hauner H. The effect of overweight and nutrition on prognosis in breast cancer. Deutsches Arzteblatt Int. 2011;108(47):795-801. [PubMed ID: 22190993].

  • 6.

    Chandran U, Hirshfield KM, Bandera EV. The role of anthropometric and nutritional factors on breast cancer risk in African-American women. Public Health Nutr. 2012;15(4):738-48. [PubMed ID: 22122844]. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898001100303X.

  • 7.

    Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. . Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003.

  • 8.

    Monro JA, Shaw M. Glycemic impact, glycemic glucose equivalents, glycemic index, and glycemic load: definitions, distinctions, and implications. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;87(1):237S-43S. [PubMed ID: 18175763].

  • 9.

    Wolever TM, Bolognesi C. Prediction of glucose and insulin responses of normal subjects after consuming mixed meals varying in energy, protein, fat, carbohydrate and glycemic index. J Nutr. 1996;126(11):2807-12. [PubMed ID: 8914952].

  • 10.

    Toniolo P, Bruning PF, Akhmedkhanov A, Bonfrer JM, Koenig KL, Lukanova A, et al. Serum insulin-like growth factor-I and breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 2000;88(5):828-32.

  • 11.

    Rinaldi S, Kaaks R, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Arslan AA, Shore RE, Koenig KL, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-I, IGF binding protein-3, and breast cancer in young women: a comparison of risk estimates using different peptide assays. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarker Prevent. 2005;14(1):48-52. [PubMed ID: 15668475].

  • 12.

    Kaaks R, Bellati C, Venturelli E, Rinaldi S, Secreto G, Biessy C, et al. Effects of dietary intervention on IGF-I and IGF-binding proteins, and related alterations in sex steroid metabolism: the Diet and Androgens (DIANA) Randomised Trial. Europ J Clin Nutr. 2003;57(9):1079-88. [PubMed ID: 12947426]. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601647.

  • 13.

    Nestler JE, Jakubowicz DJ. Decreases in ovarian cytochrome P450c17 alpha activity and serum free testosterone after reduction of insulin secretion in polycystic ovary syndrome. New England J Med. 1996;335(9):617-23. [PubMed ID: 8687515]. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199608293350902.

  • 14.

    Rezazadeh A, Rashidkhani B. The association of general and central central obesity with major dietary patterns of adult women living in Tehran, Iran. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol. 2010;56(2):132-8. https://doi.org/10.3177/jnsv.56.132.

  • 15.

    Lajous M, Boutron-Ruault MC, Fabre A, Clavel-Chapelon F, Romieu I. Carbohydrate intake, glycemic index, glycemic load, and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer in a prospective study of French women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;87(5):1384-91. [PubMed ID: 18469262].

  • 16.

    Romieu I, Ferrari P, Rinaldi S, Slimani N, Jenab M, Olsen A, et al. Dietary glycemic index and glycemic load and breast cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96(2):345-55. [PubMed ID: 22760570]. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.111.026724.

  • 17.

    Sieri S, Pala V, Brighenti F, Agnoli C, Grioni S, Berrino F, et al. High glycemic diet and breast cancer occurrence in the Italian EPIC cohort. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2012.01.001.

  • 18.

    Larsson SC, Bergkvist L, Wolk A. Glycemic load, glycemic index and breast cancer risk in a prospective cohort of Swedish women. Int J Cancer. 2009;125(1):153-7. [PubMed ID: 19319984]. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.24310.

  • 19.

    McCann SE, McCann WE, Hong CC, Marshall JR, Edge SB, Trevisan M, et al. Dietary patterns related to glycemic index and load and risk of premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer in the Western New York Exposure and Breast Cancer Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;86(2):465-71. [PubMed ID: 17684220].

  • 20.

    Yun SH, Kim K, Nam SJ, Kong G, Kim MK. The association of carbohydrate intake, glycemic load, glycemic index, and selected rice foods with breast cancer risk: a case-control study in South Korea. Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr. 2010;19(3):383-92. [PubMed ID: 20805083].

  • 21.

    Shikany JM, Redden DT, Neuhouser ML, Chlebowski RT, Rohan TE, Simon MS, et al. Dietary glycemic load, glycemic index, and carbohydrate and risk of breast cancer in the Women's Health Initiative. Nutr Cancer. 2011;63(6):899-907. [PubMed ID: 21714685]. https://doi.org/10.1080/01635581.2011.587227.

  • 22.

    Mirmiran P, Esfahani FH, Mehrabi Y, Hedayati M, Azizi F. Reliability and relative validity of an FFQ for nutrients in the Tehran lipid and glucose study. Public Health Nutr. 2010;13(5):654-62. [PubMed ID: 19807937]. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980009991698.

  • 23.

    Ghaffarpour M, Houshiar-Rad A, Kianfar H. The manual for household measures, cooking yields factors and edible portion of food. . Tehran: Keshaverzi press; 1999.

  • 24.

    Taleban f, Eamayili M. Glycemic index of Iranian foods. Institute of Nutrion and food research, shahid beheshty university;. . 1999.

  • 25.

    Atkinson FS, Foster-Powell K, Brand-Miller JC. International tables of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2008. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(12):2281-3. [PubMed ID: 18835944]. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc08-1239.

  • 26.

    Heinen MM, Verhage BA, Lumey L, Brants HA, Goldbohm RA, van den Brandt PA. Glycemic load, glycemic index, and pancreatic cancer risk in the Netherlands Cohort Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;87(4):970-7. [PubMed ID: 18400721].

  • 27.

    Sieri S, Pala V, Brighenti F, Pellegrini N, Muti P, Micheli A, et al. Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, and the risk of breast cancer in an Italian prospective cohort study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;86(4):1160-6. [PubMed ID: 17921397].

  • 28.

    Tavani A, Giordano L, Gallus S, Talamini R, Franceschi S, Giacosa A. Consumption of sweet foods and breast cancer risk in Italy. Annals Oncol. 2006;17(2):341-5. [PubMed ID: 16249211]. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdj051.

  • 29.

    Lajous M, Willett W, Lazcano-Ponce E, Sanchez-Zamorano LM, Hernandez-Avila M, Romieu I. Glycemic load, glycemic index, and the risk of breast cancer among Mexican women. Cancer Cause Cont. 2005;16(10):1165-9. [PubMed ID: 16215866]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-005-0355-x.

  • 30.

    Augustin LS, Dal Maso L, La Vecchia C, Parpinel M, Negri E, Vaccarella S, et al. Dietary glycemic index and glycemic load, and breast cancer risk: a case-control study. Annal Oncol. 2001;12(11):1533-8. [PubMed ID: 11822751]. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013176129380.

  • 31.

    Belle FN, Kampman E, McTiernan A, Bernstein L, Baumgartner K, Baumgartner R, et al. Dietary fiber, carbohydrates, glycemic index, and glycemic load in relation to breast cancer prognosis in the HEAL cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarker Prevent. 2011;20(5):890-9. [PubMed ID: 21430298]. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-1278.

  • 32.

    Horn-Ross PL, Hoggatt KJ, West DW, Krone MR, Stewart SL, Anton H, et al. Recent diet and breast cancer risk: the California Teachers Study (USA). Cancer Cause Cont. 2002;13(5):407-15. [PubMed ID: 12146845]. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015786030864.

  • 33.

    Cho E, Spiegelman D, Hunter DJ, Chen WY, Colditz GA, Willett WC. Premenopausal dietary carbohydrate, glycemic index, glycemic load, and fiber in relation to risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarker Prevent. 2003;12(11 Pt 1):1153-8. [PubMed ID: 14652274].

  • 34.

    Higginbotham S, Zhang ZF, Lee IM, Cook NR, Buring JE, Liu S. Dietary glycemic load and breast cancer risk in the Women's Health Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarker Prevent. 2004;13(1):65-70. [PubMed ID: 14744735]. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-03-0066.

  • 35.

    Holmes MD, Liu S, Hankinson SE, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Willett WC. Dietary carbohydrates, fiber, and breast cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(8):732-9. [PubMed ID: 15051582]. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwh112.

  • 36.

    Gross GE, Boldt DH, Osborne CK. Perturbation by insulin of human breast cancer cell cycle kinetics. Cancer Res. 1984;44(8):3570-5. [PubMed ID: 6378371].

  • 37.

    Geier A, Beery R, Haimshon M, Hemi R, Lunenfeld B. Serum and insulin inhibit cell death induced by cycloheximide in the human breast cancer cell line MCF-7. In vitro Cell Development Biol. 1992;28A(6):415-8. [PubMed ID: 1634442]. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02634045.

  • 38.

    Ma Y, Hebert JR, Li W, Bertone-Johnson ER, Olendzki B, Pagoto SL, et al. Association between dietary fiber and markers of systemic inflammation in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study. Nutrition. 2008;24(10):941-9. [PubMed ID: 18562168]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2008.04.005.

  • 39.

    Ma Y, Griffith JA, Chasan-Taber L, Olendzki BC, Jackson E, Stanek EJ, 3rd, et al. Association between dietary fiber and serum C-reactive protein. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83(4):760-6. [PubMed ID: 16600925].

  • 40.

    Rock CL, Flatt SW, Thomson CA, Stefanick ML, Newman VA, Jones LA, et al. Effects of a high-fiber, low-fat diet intervention on serum concentrations of reproductive steroid hormones in women with a history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(12):2379-87. [PubMed ID: 15197199]. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.09.025.

  • 41.

    Galisteo M, Duarte J, Zarzuelo A. Effects of dietary fibers on disturbances clustered in the metabolic syndrome. J Nutr Biochem. 2008;19(2):71-84. [PubMed ID: 17618108]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnutbio.2007.02.009.

  • 42.

    Willett W, et al. Nutritional epidemiology. . 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195122978.001.0001.

  • 43.

    . Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1980.

  • 44.

    D'Avanzo B, La Vecchia C, Katsouyanni K, Negri E, Trichopoulos D. An assessment, and reproducibility of food frequency data provided by hospital controls. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1997;6(3):288-93. [PubMed ID: 9306076]. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008469-199706000-00006.