Jebb Susan A
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences,University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter,Woodstock Road,Oxford OX2 6GG,UK.
Proc Nutr Soc. 2015 Aug;74(3):215-20. doi: 10.1017/S0029665114001645. Epub 2014 Dec 17.
Carbohydrates provide the major source of energy in the diet and hence the type and amount of carbohydrate consumed is an important consideration for weight control. Recent risk assessments have shown that there is no consistent association between the proportions of energy consumed as carbohydrate and body weight and reinforce the dominance of total energy intake as the primary determinant of body weight. However, they have highlighted evidence that different types of carbohydrate have specific effects on the risk of obesity. Short-term experimental studies suggest that some types of dietary fibre may be linked to increased satiation and cohort studies are supportive of an association between low intakes of fibre-rich, whole-grain foods and weight gain. But these observations are not supported by evidence of effects on body weight in randomised controlled trials, suggesting that high-fibre or whole-grain intake may simply be a marker of a broader dietary pattern. Recent attention has focused on the growing evidence of a positive association between the intake of free sugars and weight gain and particularly the risks linked to consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB). Given the high population-level intake of free sugars the challenge is to identify actions that will successfully reduce consumption to contribute to reductions in the prevalence of obesity. The present paper considers the range of policy options available, using the Nuffield ladder of intervention to provide a framework for risk management, with a focus on the consumption of SSB. Current policy interventions are largely based around consumer education and encouragement to industry to renovate products to reduce the sugar content of food and drinks and/or reduce portion size, but dietary change has been slow. Further measures, including the use of specific incentives/disincentives may be needed to change consumption patterns, some of which may infringe personal or commercial freedom. For these policies to be implemented will require sustained efforts to create a climate in which such interventions are acceptable or even welcomed by society as an appropriate protection against obesity and other diet-related ill-health.
碳水化合物是饮食中能量的主要来源,因此,碳水化合物的类型和摄入量是体重控制的重要考量因素。近期的风险评估表明,碳水化合物供能比例与体重之间不存在一致的关联,这进一步强化了总能量摄入作为体重主要决定因素的主导地位。然而,这些评估突出了不同类型碳水化合物对肥胖风险具有特定影响的证据。短期实验研究表明,某些膳食纤维可能与饱腹感增强有关,队列研究也支持富含纤维的全谷物食品摄入量低与体重增加之间存在关联。但随机对照试验中关于对体重影响的证据并不支持这些观察结果,这表明高纤维或全谷物摄入量可能仅仅是更广泛饮食模式的一个标志。最近,人们的注意力集中在越来越多的证据上,即游离糖摄入量与体重增加之间存在正相关,尤其是与饮用含糖饮料(SSB)相关的风险。鉴于游离糖在人群中的高摄入量,挑战在于确定能够成功减少摄入量的行动,以有助于降低肥胖患病率。本文考虑了一系列可用的政策选择,利用纳菲尔德干预阶梯提供风险管理框架,重点关注含糖饮料的消费。当前的政策干预主要围绕消费者教育以及鼓励行业对产品进行革新,以降低食品和饮料的含糖量和/或减小份量,但饮食变化一直很缓慢。可能需要采取进一步措施,包括使用特定的激励/抑制措施来改变消费模式,其中一些措施可能会侵犯个人或商业自由。要实施这些政策,需要持续努力营造一种氛围,使此类干预措施被社会接受甚至欢迎,成为预防肥胖和其他与饮食相关的健康问题的适当手段。