Thomas D E, Elliott E J, Baur L
University of Sydney, Children's Hospital at Westmead, CEBPGAN (Centre for Evidence Based Paediatrics Gastroenterology and Nutrition), Locked Bag 4001, Westmead, Australia, NSW 2145.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jul 18;2007(3):CD005105. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005105.pub2.
Obesity is increasingly prevalent, yet the nutritional management remains contentious. It has been suggested that low glycaemic index or load diets may stimulate greater weight loss than higher glycaemic index or load diets or other weight reduction diets.
To assess the effects of low glycaemic index or load diets for weight loss in overweight or obese people.
Trials were identified through The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and manual searches of bibliographies.
Randomised controlled trials comparing a low glycaemic index or load diet (LGI) with a higher glycaemic index or load diet or other diet (Cdiet) in overweight or obese people.
Two authors independently selected trials, assessed quality and extracted data, including any information provided on adverse effects.
We identified six eligible randomised controlled trials (total of 202 participants). Interventions ranged from five weeks to six months duration with up to six months follow-up after the intervention ceased. The decrease in body mass (WMD -1.1 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.0 to -0.2, P < 0.05) (n = 163), total fat mass (WMD -1.1 kg, 95% CI -1.9 to -0.4, P < 0.05) (n =147) and body mass index (WMD -1.3, 95% CI -2.0 to -0.5, P < 0.05) (n = 48) was significantly greater in participants receiving LGI compared to Cdiets. The decrease in total cholesterol was significantly greater with LGI compared to Cdiets (WMD -0.22 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.02, P < 0.05), as was the change in LDL-cholesterol (WMD -0.24 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.05, P < 0.05). No study reported adverse effects, mortality or quality of life data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overweight or obese people on LGI lost more weight and had more improvement in lipid profiles than those receiving Cdiets. Body mass, total fat mass, body mass index, total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol all decreased significantly more in the LGI group. In studies comparing ad libitum LGI diets to conventional restricted energy low-fat diets, participants fared as well or better on th LGI diet, even though they could eat as much as desired. Lowering the glycaemic load of the diet appears to be an effective method of promoting weight loss and improving lipid profiles and can be simply incorporated into a person's lifestyle. Further research with longer term follow-up will determine whether improvement continues long-term and improves quality of life.
肥胖日益普遍，但其营养管理仍存在争议。有人认为，低血糖指数或负荷饮食可能比高血糖指数或负荷饮食或其他减肥饮食更能促进体重减轻。
评估低血糖指数或负荷饮食对超重或肥胖人群体重减轻的影响。
通过Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL以及对参考文献的手工检索来识别试验。
比较超重或肥胖人群中低血糖指数或负荷饮食（LGI）与高血糖指数或负荷饮食或其他饮食（对照饮食）的随机对照试验。
两位作者独立选择试验、评估质量并提取数据，包括提供的任何关于不良反应的信息。
我们识别出六项符合条件的随机对照试验（共202名参与者）。干预持续时间从五周到六个月不等，干预停止后有长达六个月的随访。与对照饮食相比，接受LGI的参与者体重下降（加权均数差为 -1.1 kg，95%置信区间（CI）为 -2.0至 -0.2，P < 0.05）（n = 163）、总脂肪量下降（加权均数差为 -1.1 kg，95% CI为 -1.9至 -0.4，P < 0.05）（n = 147）以及体重指数下降（加权均数差为 -1.3，95% CI为 -2.0至 -0.5，P < 0.05）（n = 48）均显著更大。与对照饮食相比，LGI组的总胆固醇下降也显著更大（加权均数差为 -0.22 mmol/L，95% CI为 -0.43至 -0.02，P < 0.05），低密度脂蛋白胆固醇的变化也是如此（加权均数差为 -0.24 mmol/L，95% CI为 -0.44至 -0.05，P < 0.05）。没有研究报告不良反应、死亡率或生活质量数据。
与接受对照饮食的人相比，采用LGI饮食的超重或肥胖者体重减轻更多，血脂状况改善更明显。LGI组的体重、总脂肪量、体重指数、总胆固醇和低密度脂蛋白胆固醇下降均显著更多。在将自由选择的LGI饮食与传统的限制能量低脂饮食进行比较的研究中，参与者在LGI饮食中的表现同样良好或更好，尽管他们可以随心所欲地进食。降低饮食的血糖负荷似乎是促进体重减轻和改善血脂状况的有效方法，并且可以简单地融入个人生活方式。长期随访的进一步研究将确定这种改善是否能长期持续并提高生活质量。
