低脂還是低碳水，怎么吃才能減肥？

The endless array of diets that claim to help you shed pounds tend to fall into two camps: low fat or low carbohydrate. Some companies even claim that genetics can tell us which diet is better for which people.

聲稱能幫助你減肥的飲食方式不計(jì)其數(shù)，它們往往分為兩大陣營(yíng)：低脂或低碳水化合物。一些公司甚至聲稱基因可以告訴我們哪種飲食更適合哪些人。

A rigorous recent study sought to settle the debate, and it had results to disappoint both camps. On the hopeful side, as The New York Times noted, people managed to lose weight no matter which of the two diets they followed.

最近，一項(xiàng)嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)难芯吭噲D解決這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論。研究得出的結(jié)果讓兩個(gè)陣營(yíng)都失望了。樂(lè)觀的一面是，正如《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》所指出的那樣，兩種飲食方式無(wú)論遵循哪一種都能減肥。

The study is worth a closer look to see what it did and did not prove.

這項(xiàng)研究值得我們?nèi)ゼ?xì)究它證明了什么，沒(méi)有證明什么。

Researchers at Stanford University took more than 600 people (which is huge for a nutrition study) aged 18 to 50 who had a body mass index of 28 to 40 (25-30 is overweight, and 30 and over is obese). The study subjects had to be otherwise healthy. They couldn’t even be on statins, or drugs for Type 2 diabetes or hypertension, which might affect weight or energy expenditure. They were all randomly assigned to a healthful low-fat or a healthful low-carbohydrate diet, and they were clearly not blinded to which group they were in.

斯坦福大學(xué)(Stanford University)的研究人員挑選了600多名(這個(gè)數(shù)字對(duì)營(yíng)養(yǎng)學(xué)研究來(lái)說(shuō)堪稱巨大)年齡在18到50歲，身體質(zhì)量指數(shù)在28到40之間(25到30之間為超重，30或以上為肥胖)的研究對(duì)象。他們?cè)谄渌矫姹仨毐３纸】?，甚至不能服用他汀類藥物，也就是治?型糖尿病或高血壓的藥物。這些藥物可能會(huì)影響體重或能量消耗。所有人被隨機(jī)分到健康低脂飲食組或健康低碳水化合物飲食組，但他們顯然不知道自己屬于哪一個(gè)組。

All participants attended 22 instructional sessions over one year in groups of about 17 people. The sessions were held weekly at first and were then spaced out so that they were monthly in the last six months. Everyone was encouraged to reduce intake of the avoided nutrient to 20 grams per day over the first eight weeks, then participants slowly added fats or carbohydrates back to their diets until they reached the lowest level of intake they believed could be sustained for the long haul.

在一年時(shí)間里，所有參與者以大約17人一個(gè)小組的形式上了22次指導(dǎo)課。這些課程一開(kāi)始每周一次，然后拉開(kāi)間距，到最后六個(gè)月變成每月一次。在前八周，每個(gè)人都被鼓勵(lì)將應(yīng)避免的營(yíng)養(yǎng)物質(zhì)的攝入量降低到一天20克，然后參與者慢慢恢復(fù)各自飲食中的脂肪或碳水化合物攝入量，直到達(dá)到他們認(rèn)為可以長(zhǎng)期維持的最低攝入量。

Everyone was followed for a year (which is an eternity for a nutrition study). Everyone was encouraged to maximize vegetable intake; to minimize added sugar, refined flour and trans fat intake; and to focus on whole foods that were minimally processed. The subjects were also encouraged to cook at home as much as possible.

每個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)對(duì)象都被追蹤了一年(這對(duì)營(yíng)養(yǎng)學(xué)研究來(lái)說(shuō)這是很長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間)。所有人都被鼓勵(lì)盡量多攝入蔬菜，少攝入添加糖、精制面粉和反式脂肪酸，并重點(diǎn)食用簡(jiǎn)單加工的全天然食物。實(shí)驗(yàn)對(duì)象還被鼓勵(lì)盡可能在家做飯。

All the participants took a glucose tolerance test as a measurement of insulin sensitivity. Some believe that insulin resistance or sensitivity may affect not only how people respond to diets, but also how well they adhere to them. The participants were also genotyped, because some believe that certain genes will make people more sensitive to carbohydrates or fat with respect to weight gain. About 40 percent of participants had a low-fat genotype, and 30 percent had a low-carbohydrate genotype.

所有參與者都接受了葡萄糖耐量測(cè)試，以衡量他們的胰島素敏感性。一些人認(rèn)為，胰島素抵抗或敏感性不僅會(huì)影響人們對(duì)飲食方式的反應(yīng)，還會(huì)影響他們對(duì)飲食方式的堅(jiān)持情況。參與者還接受了基因分型，因?yàn)橐恍┤苏J(rèn)為，就體重增加而言，某些基因會(huì)使人們對(duì)碳水化合物或脂肪更敏感。大約40%的參與者屬于低脂基因型，30%屬于低碳水化合物基因型。

Data were gathered at the beginning of the study, at six months and at one year. At three unannounced times, researchers checked on patients to see how closely they were sticking to the instructions.

研究過(guò)程中收集了三次數(shù)據(jù)，分別是研究開(kāi)始、六個(gè)月和一年時(shí)。研究人員分三次在不事先通知的情況下查看患者嚴(yán)格遵守指導(dǎo)的情況。

This was a phenomenally well-designed trial.

這是一項(xiàng)設(shè)計(jì)得極為出色的試驗(yàn)。

People did change their diets according to their group assignment. Those in the low-fat group consumed, on average, 29 percent of their calories from fats, versus 45 percent in the low-carbohydrate group. Those in the low-carbohydrate group consumed 30 percent of their calories from carbohydrates, versus 48 percent in the low-fat group.

人們的確會(huì)根據(jù)分組改變自己的飲食。低脂組的人消耗的熱量平均29%來(lái)自脂肪，低碳水組的人45%的熱量來(lái)自脂肪。低碳水組消耗的熱量30%來(lái)自碳水化合物，低脂組48%的熱量來(lái)自碳水化合物。

They did not, however, lose meaningfully different amounts of weight. At 12 months, the low-carbohydrate group had lost, on average, just over 13 pounds, compared with more than 11.5 pounds in the low-fat group. The difference was not statistically significant.

然而，他們的體重減少并沒(méi)有什么實(shí)質(zhì)性的不同。在12個(gè)月時(shí)，低碳水組平均只減了13磅多一點(diǎn)，對(duì)比低脂組減少了超過(guò)11.5磅。該差異沒(méi)有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。

Insulin sensitivity didn’t make a difference. People who secreted more or less insulin lost no more or less weight in general on either a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet. Genetics didn’t make a difference either. People who had genes that might indicate that they would do better on one diet or the other didn’t.

胰島素敏感性并沒(méi)有影響。人們分泌的胰島素不論多少，在低脂或低碳水飲食中的減重差別都不大?；蛞矝](méi)什么差別。一些人有的基因可能意味著他們會(huì)在某類飲食中表現(xiàn)更好，而在另一種飲食中則沒(méi)那么好。

In fact, when you look at how every single participant in this study fared on the diet to which he or she was assigned, it’s remarkable how both diets yielded an almost identical, curving range of responses — from lots of weight lost to a little gained. It wasn’t just the averages.

事實(shí)上，如果觀察研究中每個(gè)單一參與者根據(jù)自己所分配到的飲食進(jìn)食，人們會(huì)驚訝于兩種進(jìn)食都產(chǎn)生了幾乎相同的曲線反應(yīng)范圍——從大幅減重的到輕微增重的。不僅僅是平均數(shù)。

Some have taken this study to prove that avoiding processed foods, eating more whole foods, and cooking at home leads to weight loss. While I’d like that to be true — I have advocated this healthful approach in my Upshot article on food recommendations and in a recent book — that’s not what this study showed. Although that advice was given to all participants, there was no control group in which that advice was omitted, and so no conclusions can be made as to the efficacy of these instructions.

一些人用這項(xiàng)研究證明，避開(kāi)加工食品、吃更多天然食品并且在家下廚就能減肥。雖然我希望這是真的——在“結(jié)語(yǔ)”(Upshot)專欄有關(guān)食物的文章以及最近的一本書中，我都提倡過(guò)這種健康的方法——但本次研究并未表現(xiàn)出這一點(diǎn)。雖然所有參與者都得到了這一建議，但并沒(méi)有未得到該項(xiàng)建議的對(duì)照組，因此，不能得出有關(guān)這些建議是否有效的結(jié)論。

Others have taken this study as evidence debunking the idea that counting calories is the key to weight loss. While that wasn’t the main thrust of this study, nor the instructions given, participants did reduce their intake by an average of 500-600 calories a day (even if they didn’t count them). This study didn’t prove the unimportance of calories.

有人用這項(xiàng)研究來(lái)駁斥卡路里是減肥關(guān)鍵的說(shuō)法。雖然這不是研究的主要目的，給出的指示里也沒(méi)有，但參與者每天確實(shí)減少了500到600卡路里的攝入量(即使他們沒(méi)在計(jì)算)。這項(xiàng)研究不能證明卡路里不重要。

The researchers also asked everyone, not just those in the low-carb group, to avoid “added sugars.” Therefore, we can’t really say anything new about added sugars and weight loss.

研究人員還要求所有人避免“添加糖”，而不只是只對(duì)低碳水化合物組有這個(gè)要求。因此，對(duì)于添加糖和減肥的關(guān)系我們并沒(méi)有什么新消息。

What this study does show is that people who have staked a claim on one diet’s superiority over another don’t have as strong a case as they think. It’s hard to overstate how similarly these two diets performed, even at an individual level.

這項(xiàng)研究能夠表明的是，那些主張某種飲食比另一種飲食更好的人，或許不像他們所想的那么有理有據(jù)。即使是在個(gè)人層面，這兩種飲食的表現(xiàn)之相似是毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)的。

It shows us that the many people, and the many studies, suggesting that we can tell which diets are best for you based on genetics or based on insulin levels might not be right either. Almost all of the studies that backed up such ideas were smaller, of shorter duration or less robust in design than this one. Granted, it’s still possible that there might be some gene discovered in the future that makes a difference, but those who think they’ve found it already might want to check their enthusiasm.

它也向我們表明，許多人和許多研究認(rèn)為我們能根據(jù)基因或胰島素水平來(lái)判斷哪種飲食對(duì)你有益，可能也是不對(duì)的。幾乎所有支持這些想法的研究都規(guī)模較小、時(shí)間跨度更短或設(shè)計(jì)方案魯棒性不足。誠(chéng)然，未來(lái)仍有可能發(fā)現(xiàn)一些能產(chǎn)生影響的基因，但那些覺(jué)得自己已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)了這個(gè)基因的人，可能需要再考慮考慮了。

This study was focused mostly on people who were obese, so people looking to lose just a few pounds might benefit more from one diet or the other; we don’t know. It’s also worth noting that the people in this study received significant support on both diets, so the results seen here might not apply to those attempting to lose weight on their own.

這項(xiàng)研究主要關(guān)注那些肥胖的人，所以我們不知道想要減掉幾磅體重的人會(huì)從哪種飲食上獲益更多。同樣值得注意的是，這項(xiàng)研究的參與者不管采用哪種飲食方式都獲得了大量支持，所以它的結(jié)果可能并不適用于那些試圖自己減肥的人。

You should be wary of those who tell you that they know what diet is best for you, or that there’s a test out there to tell you the same. Successful diets over the long haul are most likely ones that involve slow and steady changes. The simplest approach — and many have espoused it, including Jane Brody recently here at The Times — is to cut out processed foods, think about the calories you’re drinking, and try not to eat more than you intend to.

如果有些人對(duì)你說(shuō)，他們知道什么樣的飲食最適合你，或者有個(gè)測(cè)試能幫你測(cè)出來(lái)，對(duì)此你要保持警惕。緩慢而穩(wěn)定的改變才最有可能保證長(zhǎng)期節(jié)食的成功。最簡(jiǎn)單的方法是減少食用加工食品，留意你從飲料中攝入了多少卡路里，盡量不要吃得比你打算吃的多。很多人都贊成這種方式，包括最近在時(shí)報(bào)上發(fā)表文章的簡(jiǎn)·布羅迪(Jane Brody)。

The bottom line is that the best diet for you is still the one you will stick to. No one knows better than you what that diet might be. You’ll most likely have to figure it out for yourself.

最重要的是，最適合你的飲食仍然是你能堅(jiān)持下去的飲食。沒(méi)有人比你更清楚你最適合哪種飲食。你很可能需要自己去弄清楚。