Side N
Meal Sequencing — Vegetables Before Starch
Which sources back which section of this article, and what its evidence base looks like.
Which sources back which section
| Section | Sources behind it |
|---|---|
| What Happened | Shukla et al., Diabetes Care (2015); Shukla et al., BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care (2017); Sun et al., Clinical Nutrition (2019); Okami et al., BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care (2022); Nitta et al., Nutrients (2022); Shukla et al., Nutrients (2023); Shaheen et al., Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes (2024); Saldarriaga-Callejas et al., Acta Diabetologica (2025); Choi et al., Diabetes Obes Metab (2026) |
| Timeline | Every source above, plus Imai, Fukui & Kajiyama, J Clin Biochem Nutr (2014); Kubota et al., Nutrients (2020); Murugesan et al., Frontiers in Nutrition (2024); Touhamy et al., Diabetes Care (2025); Deguchi et al., Nutrients (2025); Higuchi et al., Nutrients (2025); Kim, Jang & Lee, Clinical Nutrition Research (2026); McKenzie et al., Endocrinol Diabetes Metab (2026) |
| The Argument | Kubota et al., Nutrients (2020) for the mechanism; Saldarriaga-Callejas et al., Acta Diabetologica (2025) for the pooled GLP-1 and gastric-emptying figures; Deguchi et al., Nutrients (2025) for eating speed; Shukla et al. (2017) and Sun et al. (2019) for the measurements behind both |
| What Others Add | The five crossover trials side by side; Nitta et al. (2022), Okami et al. (2022), Saldarriaga-Callejas et al. (2025) and Shukla et al. (2023) for the long-term question; Murugesan et al. (2024 and 2025) and Imai et al., Nutrients (2026) for pregnancy; Hendley, Harvard Health Publishing (2026) for the clinician’s assessment |
| Conclusion | Imai, Fukui & Kajiyama (2014) and Nitta et al. (2022) for what the trials had participants do; Saldarriaga-Callejas et al. (2025) for the size of the long-term effect; Hendley, Harvard Health Publishing (2026) for what a practising dietitian says it is worth |
What the evidence base looks like
- 20Sources behind this article
- 5Read in full
- 14Read at the abstract only
- 1A published letter whose text could not be obtained
| What the source is | How many | How they were read |
|---|---|---|
| Randomised or crossover trials in a journal | 8 | Two in full from the archive copy, six at their published abstract, which for each carries the paper’s own figures |
| Systematic reviews and meta-analyses | 4 | All four at their published abstract, each of which states its own trial count, participant count and pooled intervals |
| Cohorts, registries and before-and-after studies | 5 | Three in full, because the design is what decides how much they are worth; two at the abstract |
| A narrative review of the mechanism | 1 | At the abstract; its claims appear on the page only where a trial measures the same thing |
| A hospital publisher’s explainer, reviewed by a named dietitian | 1 | Read in full at its own address; used for what it attributes to a named person, not as evidence of a result |
| A journal letter whose body could not be read | 1 | Its authors, journal and date are established; no number from it appears anywhere on the page |
Reliable
Reliable, but with an interestWorth believing and reliableWeak on both, and used with careHonest, but thin
Worth believing