人体的内脏脂肪主要集中于腹腔内，一些肥胖者“大腹便便”，主要就是内脏脂肪难以消解。美国一项最新调查显示，每天在饮食中增加可溶性膳食纤维摄入量，将有助减少内脏脂肪，不仅改善体形，也预防高血压、糖尿病及脂肪肝等慢性病。
多食用蔬果有助于减少内脏脂肪
这项调查是由美国维克森林浸礼会医学中心的研究人员完成的，刊登在新一期《肥胖症》月刊上。
内脏脂肪与皮下脂肪不同，它围绕着腹腔内的器官。正常的内脏脂肪有保护作用，但内脏脂肪过多就会压迫内脏活动，影响其功能，使“大腹便便”者罹患高血压、糖尿病及脂肪肝等疾病的风险增高。
研究人员找来１１１４名非洲裔和西班牙裔的调查对象，因为在这两大族裔中，有不少人内脏脂肪水平过高，同时罹患高血压及糖尿病的风险也较高。研究人员对他们的饮食及运动习惯进行调查，并通过ＣＴ扫描，了解他们５年内内脏脂肪的变化情况。
调查发现，增加可溶性膳食纤维的摄入量可以减少内脏脂肪，但对皮下脂肪无影响。更具体地说，如果每天摄入１０克可溶性膳食纤维，５年内人体内的内脏脂肪可以减少３．７％，其作用相当于经常进行中等强度的运动。
研究人员指出，每天摄入１０克可溶性膳食纤维并不难做到，它约相当于每天吃２个小苹果、１小杯绿豌豆及１杯半菜豆等。报告的主要作者海尔斯顿表示，有许多证据表明，多吃可溶性膳食纤维及经常运动都有助于减少内脏脂肪，但仍需进行更深入的研究，以弄清可溶性膳食纤维与内脏脂肪之间的关系。
生物探索推荐英文原文：
Randomized Controlled Trial to Improve Adiposity, Inflammation, and Insulin Resistance in Obese African-American and Latino Youth
The purpose of this study was to examine ethnic differences in the metabolic responses to a 16-week intervention designed to improve insulin sensitivity (SI), adiposity, and inflammation in obese African-American and Latino adolescents. A total of 100 participants (African Americans: n = 48, Latino: n = 52; age: 15.4 ± 1.1 years, BMI percentile: 97.3 ± 3.3) were randomly assigned to interventions: control (C; n = 30), nutrition (N; n = 39, 1×/week focused on decreasing sugar and increasing fiber intake), or nutrition + strength training (N+ST; n = 31, 2×/week).
The following were measured at pre- and postintervention: strength, dietary intake, body composition (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry/magnetic resonance imaging) and glucose/insulin indexes (oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)/intravenous glucose tolerance test (IVGTT)) and inflammatory markers. Overall, N compared to C and N+ST reported significant improvements in SI (+16.5% vs. −32.3% vs. −6.9% respectively, P < 0.01) and disposition index (DI: +15.5% vs. −14.2% vs. −13.7% respectively, P < 0.01). N+ST compared to C and N reported significant reductions in hepatic fat fraction (HFF: −27.3% vs. −4.3% vs. 0% respectively, P < 0.01). Compared to N, N+ST reported reductions in plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) (−38.3% vs. +1.0%, P < 0.01) and resistin (−18.7% vs. +11.3%, P = 0.02).
There were no intervention effects for all other measures of adiposity or inflammation. Significant intervention by ethnicity interactions were found for African Americans in the N group who reported increases in total fat mass, 2-h glucose and glucose incremental areas under the curve (IAUC) compared to Latinos (P's < 0.05). These interventions yielded differential effects with N reporting favorable improvements in SI and DI and N+ST reporting marked reductions in HFF and inflammation. Both ethnic groups had significant improvements in metabolic health; however some improvements were not seen in African Americans.
