There are a number of unresolved problems and unanswered questions, and the appropriate place for the GI in patient education is not known. However, progress cannot be made without balance and objectivity. However, the horse is not dead, and those who suggest that it is, are misinterpreting data, misquoting the literature, and misusing statistics. There is no evidence for this. Following any kind of therapeutic diet requires discipline.
Choices have to be made resulting in the use of smaller amounts of some foods and more of others.
Indeed, there are situations where high-GI foods may be appropriate or even desirable. Evidence from clinical trials suggests that on a low-GI diet, the diet variety actually increases. The other reason the ADA does not endorse the GI is because of doubts about its clinical utility, which were raised by the conclusion of a small group of studies that measured glycemic responses to a single meal or, in some two meals. Early on, it was pointed out by Coulston et al. Therefore, it could be argued that the ADA's doubts about the GI should be discounted because they are not based on sound evidence.