Bhutani Surabhi, Varady Krista A
Department of Kinesiology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60612, USA.
Nutr Rev. 2009 Oct;67(10):591-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00231.x.
Dietary interventions that limit saturated fat, cholesterol, and energy are generally implemented as the first line of therapy to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Another form of diet therapy that may be effective in protecting against CHD is altering meal frequency without limiting energy. Meal-frequency regimens are classified into two major forms: 1) feasting, i.e., consuming all energy needs in one meal/day, and 2) nibbling, i.e., consuming all energy needs in three, six, nine, 12, or 17 regimented meals/day. Whether one meal pattern, feasting or nibbling, is more effective at improving indicators of CHD risk than the other, remains unresolved. Moreover, whether a dose-dependent relationship exists between biomarker improvement and the number of meals consumed per day also remains unknown. The objective of the present review was to determine which meal pattern, nibbling or feasting, is more effective at improving key indicators of CHD risk in normal-weight and obese, non-diabetic individuals.
限制饱和脂肪、胆固醇和能量摄入的饮食干预措施通常作为降低冠心病（CHD）风险的一线治疗方法实施。另一种可能有效预防冠心病的饮食疗法是改变进餐频率而不限制能量摄入。进餐频率方案主要分为两种形式：1）大餐模式，即一天内一顿饭摄入所有能量需求；2）少食多餐模式，即一天内分三、六、九、十二或十七顿规律进餐摄入所有能量需求。两种进餐模式，即大餐模式或少食多餐模式，哪种在改善冠心病风险指标方面更有效，仍未得到解决。此外，生物标志物改善与每日进餐次数之间是否存在剂量依赖关系也尚不清楚。本综述的目的是确定哪种进餐模式，即少食多餐模式或大餐模式，在改善正常体重和肥胖的非糖尿病个体的冠心病风险关键指标方面更有效。
