Long term effects of very low carb diets compared to low fat
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:12 pm
Long-term effects of a very-low-carbohydrate weight loss diet compared with an isocaloric low-fat diet after 12 mo
Background: Long-term weight loss and cardiometabolic effects of a very-low-carbohydrate, high-saturated-fat diet (LC) and a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (LF) have not been evaluated under isocaloric conditions.
Objective: The objective was to compare an energy-controlled LC diet with an LF diet at 1 y.
Design: Men and women (n = 118) with abdominal obesity and at least one additional metabolic syndrome risk factor were randomly assigned to either an energy-restricted ({approx}6–7 MJ) LC diet (4%, 35%, and 61% of energy as carbohydrate, protein, and fat, respectively) or an isocaloric LF diet (46%, 24%, and 30% of energy as carbohydrate, protein, and fat, respectively) for 1 y. Weight, body composition, and cardiometabolic risk markers were assessed.
Results: Sixty-nine participants (59%) completed the trial: 33 in the LC group and 36 in the LF group. Both groups lost similar amounts of weight (LC: –14.5 ± 1.7 kg; LF: –11.5 ± 1.2 kg; P = 0.14, time x diet) and body fat (LC: –11.3 ± 1.5 kg; LF: –9.4 ± 1.2 kg; P = 0.30). Blood pressure, fasting glucose, insulin, insulin resistance, and C-reactive protein decreased independently of diet composition. Compared with the LF group, the LC group had greater decreases in triglycerides (–0.36 ± 0.15 mmol/L; 95% CI: –0.67, –0.05 mmol/L; P = 0.011), increases in HDL cholesterol (0.23 ± 0.09 mmol/L; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.40 mmol/L; P = 0.018) and LDL cholesterol (0.6 ± 0.2 mmol/L; 95% CI: 0.2, 1.0 mmol/L; P = 0.001), and a greater but nonsignificant increase in apolipoprotein B (0.08 ± 0.04 g/L; 95% CI: –0.004, 0.171 g/L; P = 0.17).
Conclusions: Under planned isoenergetic conditions, as expected, both dietary patterns resulted in similar weight loss and changes in body composition. The LC diet may offer clinical benefits to obese persons with insulin resistance. However, the increase in LDL cholesterol with the LC diet suggests that this measure should be monitored.
Actually the LC group lost more weight than the LF group, but it was not deemed statistically significant.
Some other numbers from the full paper
Background: Long-term weight loss and cardiometabolic effects of a very-low-carbohydrate, high-saturated-fat diet (LC) and a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (LF) have not been evaluated under isocaloric conditions.
Objective: The objective was to compare an energy-controlled LC diet with an LF diet at 1 y.
Design: Men and women (n = 118) with abdominal obesity and at least one additional metabolic syndrome risk factor were randomly assigned to either an energy-restricted ({approx}6–7 MJ) LC diet (4%, 35%, and 61% of energy as carbohydrate, protein, and fat, respectively) or an isocaloric LF diet (46%, 24%, and 30% of energy as carbohydrate, protein, and fat, respectively) for 1 y. Weight, body composition, and cardiometabolic risk markers were assessed.
Results: Sixty-nine participants (59%) completed the trial: 33 in the LC group and 36 in the LF group. Both groups lost similar amounts of weight (LC: –14.5 ± 1.7 kg; LF: –11.5 ± 1.2 kg; P = 0.14, time x diet) and body fat (LC: –11.3 ± 1.5 kg; LF: –9.4 ± 1.2 kg; P = 0.30). Blood pressure, fasting glucose, insulin, insulin resistance, and C-reactive protein decreased independently of diet composition. Compared with the LF group, the LC group had greater decreases in triglycerides (–0.36 ± 0.15 mmol/L; 95% CI: –0.67, –0.05 mmol/L; P = 0.011), increases in HDL cholesterol (0.23 ± 0.09 mmol/L; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.40 mmol/L; P = 0.018) and LDL cholesterol (0.6 ± 0.2 mmol/L; 95% CI: 0.2, 1.0 mmol/L; P = 0.001), and a greater but nonsignificant increase in apolipoprotein B (0.08 ± 0.04 g/L; 95% CI: –0.004, 0.171 g/L; P = 0.17).
Conclusions: Under planned isoenergetic conditions, as expected, both dietary patterns resulted in similar weight loss and changes in body composition. The LC diet may offer clinical benefits to obese persons with insulin resistance. However, the increase in LDL cholesterol with the LC diet suggests that this measure should be monitored.
Actually the LC group lost more weight than the LF group, but it was not deemed statistically significant.
Some other numbers from the full paper
Code: Select all
Start End
LC LF LC LF
Total cholesterol(mm/dl) 209 212 232 212
Total cholesterol(mm/dl) 124 131 147 131