Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Oct 29;22(1):499.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03718-z.

Associations of periconception dietary glycemic index and load with fertility in women and men: a study among couples in the general population

Affiliations

Associations of periconception dietary glycemic index and load with fertility in women and men: a study among couples in the general population

Mireille C Schipper et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Background: The dietary glycemic index (GI) and load (GL) reflect carbohydrate quality and quantity, potentially impacting fertility through modulation of insulin sensitivity and generation of oxidative stress. While fertility is influenced by both women and men, reproductive research often emphasizes maternal factors. We first examined periconception dietary intake in both women and male partners, and subsequent associations of dietary GI and GL with fecundability and subfertility.

Methods: Among 830 women and 651 male partners, participating in a population-based prospective cohort study from preconception onwards, we assessed periconception dietary intake and calculated GI and GL, using a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) at median 12.4 weeks gestation (95% range 10.9, 18.4). Information on time to pregnancy was obtained through questionnaires, with subfertility defined as a time to pregnancy ≥ 12 months or use of assisted reproductive technology.

Results: In the periconception period, mean energy intake in women was 1870 kcal (SD: 500; 46% carbohydrates, 16% protein, 33% fat; dietary GI 56.2 (SD: 3.5) and GL 141.4 (SD: 67.4)). Mean energy intake in men was 2350 kcal (SD: 591; 43% carbohydrates, 16% protein, 33% fat; dietary GI 56.8 (SD: 3.2) and GL 156.7 (SD: 75.4)). Median time to pregnancy was 4.8 months (IQR: 1.2, 16.4), with 30.6% of 830 women experiencing subfertility. Dietary GI and GL were not associated with fertility outcomes in women. In men, higher dietary GI and GL across the full range were associated with decreased fecundability, after adjusting for socio-demographic and lifestyle factors, as well as dietary GI or GL of female partners [FR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.83, 0.99; FR: 0.90, 95% CI 0.81, 0.99, per SDS increase in dietary GI and GL, respectively]. When assessing the combined influence of dietary GI clinical categories in women and men, both partners adhering to a low GI diet tended to be associated with increased fecundability, but not with subfertility risk.

Conclusions: Suboptimal periconception carbohydrate intake may be negatively associated with male fertility, but not with fertility outcomes in women. Further studies are needed to assess whether a lower GI and GL diet is a feasible lifestyle intervention to improve couples fertility.

Keywords: Carbohydrates; Fertility; Glycemic index; Glycemic load; Periconception period.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Kaplan–Meier survival curves for dietary glycemic index clinical categories. The survival curves represent the survival probability (probability of not conceiving per month (28 days)) by A dietary glycemic index clinical categories in women, B dietary glycemic index clinical categories in men, and C combined dietary glycemic index clinical categories of both partners. Fecundability ratios (FRs) are shown within the figures and represent the fecundability when compared to the reference category. Fecundability represents the probability of conceiving within 1 month (28 days). Fecundability ratios were derived from the hazard ratios of the Cox proportional hazard models. Survival curves and fecundability ratios are displayed for unadjusted models

References

    1. Sun H, Gong TT, Jiang YT, Zhang S, Zhao YH, Wu QJ. Global, regional, and national prevalence and disability-adjusted life-years for infertility in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: results from a global burden of disease study, 2017. Aging (Albany NY). 2019;11(23):10952–91. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cox CM, Thoma ME, Tchangalova N, Mburu G, Bornstein MJ, Johnson CL, Kiarie J. Infertility prevalence and the methods of estimation from 1990 to 2021: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Open. 2022;2022(4):hoac051. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Taylor A. ABC of subfertility: extent of the problem. BMJ. 2003;327(7412):434–6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. Optimizing natural fertility. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(5 Suppl):S1–6. - PubMed
    1. Gaskins AJ, Chavarro JE. Diet and fertility: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(4):379–89. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources