Exploring the highs and lows of very low carbohydrate high fat diets on weight loss and diabetes- and cardiovascular disease-related risk markers: A systematic review

Obesity and malnutrition in children and adults: A clinical review

Background

In the U.S., children and adults are consuming more low-nutrient foods with added sugar and excess fats as compared to healthy, high-quality calories and micronutrients. This diet is increasing the prevalence of malnutrition and nutritional deficiencies, despite high calorie intake. This is a review of the common micronutrient deficiencies, the risk factors for malnutrition, dietary plans, and the health consequences in children and adults with obesity in the U.S.

Methods

This clinical review of literature was performed on the MEDLINE (PubMed) search engine. A total of 1391 articles were identified and after review, a total of 130 were found to be most pertinent.

Discussion

The most common micronutrient deficiencies found in patients with obesity were vitamin A, thiamine (B1), folate (B9), cobalamin (B12), vitamin D, iron, calcium, and magnesium, especially prior and after bariatric surgery. Diets that produced the most weight reduction also further puts these individuals at risk for worsening malnutrition. Malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies can worsen health outcomes if not properly managed.

Conclusion

Adequate screening and awareness of malnutrition can improve the health outcomes in patients with obesity. Physiologic changes in response to increased adiposity and inadequate intake increase this population's risk of adverse health effects. Malnutrition affects the individual and contributes to worse public health outcomes. The recommendations for screening for malnutrition are not exclusive to individuals undergoing bariatric procedures and can improve the health outcomes of any patient with obesity. However, clearly, improved nutritional status can assist with metabolism and prevent adverse nutritional outcomes post-bariatric surgery. Clinicians should advise on proper nutrition and be aware of diets that worsen deficiencies.

Effect of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet With or Without Exercise on Anxiety and Eating Behavior and Associated Changes in Cardiometabolic Health in Overweight Young Women

Background

The effectiveness of low-carbohydrate diets (LCDs) on weight loss and exercise for improving cardiometabolic fitness have been well documented in the literature, but the effects of LCDs and whether adding exercise to a LCD regime could additionally benefit mental health (e. g., by lowering the level of anxiety) and associated changes in eating behavior are less clear in overweight and obese populations. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effects of a 4-week LCD with or without exercise on anxiety and eating behavior, and to explore the associations between changes in the psychological state and physiological parameters (i.e., body composition, aerobic fitness, blood pressure, lipid profile, and metabolic hormones).

Methods

Seventy-four overweight Chinese women [age: 20.8 ± 3.0 years, body mass index (BMI): 25.3 ± 3.3 kg·m⁻²] completed the 4-week randomized controlled trial, which included a LCD group (i.e., ~50 g daily carbohydrate intake) with exercise training 5 days/week (LC-EXE, n = 26), a LCD group without exercise training (LC-CON, n = 25) and a control group that did not modify their habitual diets and physical activity (CON, n = 23). Levels of anxiety, eating behavior scores and physiological parameters (i.e., body weight, V̇O_2peak, blood pressure, fasting glucose, blood lipids, and serum metabolic hormones including insulin, C-peptide, leptin, and ghrelin) were measured before and after the intervention.

Results

There were significant reductions in anxiety levels in the LC-EXE compared with the LC-CON group, while no statistical changes were found in eating behaviors in any conditions after the 4-week intervention. Significant reduction in weight (~3.0 kg or 4%, p < 0.01) and decreases in insulin (~30% p < 0.01), C-peptide (~20% p < 0.01), and leptin (~40%, p < 0.01) were found in both LC-CON and LC-EXE groups, but adding exercise to a LCD regime generated no additional effects. There were significant improvements in V̇O_2peak (~15% p < 0.01) and anxiety (~25% p < 0.01) in the LC-EXE compared with the LC-CON group, while no statistical differences were found between CON and LC-CON treatments. Further analysis revealed a negative association (r = −0.32, p < 0.01) between changes in levels of anxiety and changes in V̇O_2peak in all participates, no other correlations were found between changes in psychological and physiological parameters.

Conclusion

Although the combination of a LCD and exercise may not induce additional reductions in body weight in overweight young females, exercise could be a useful add-on treatment along with a LCD to improve cardiometabolic health and lower anxiety levels.

Low-carbohydrate versus balanced-carbohydrate diets for reducing weight and cardiovascular risk

BACKGROUND

Debates on effective and safe diets for managing obesity in adults are ongoing. Low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets (also known as 'low-carb diets') continue to be widely promoted, marketed and commercialised as being more effective for weight loss, and healthier, than 'balanced'-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets to weight-reducing diets with balanced ranges of carbohydrates, in relation to changes in weight and cardiovascular risk, in overweight and obese adults without and with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics), ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to 25 June 2021, and screened reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews. Language or publication restrictions were not applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults (18 years+) who were overweight or living with obesity, without or with T2DM, and without or with cardiovascular conditions or risk factors. Trials had to compare low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets to balanced-carbohydrate (45% to 65% of total energy (TE)) weight-reducing diets, have a weight-reducing phase of 2 weeks or longer and be explicitly implemented for the primary purpose of reducing weight, with or without advice to restrict energy intake.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and full-text articles to determine eligibility; and independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias using RoB 2 and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We stratified analyses by participants without and with T2DM, and by diets with weight-reducing phases only and those with weight-reducing phases followed by weight-maintenance phases. Primary outcomes were change in body weight (kg) and the number of participants per group with weight loss of at least 5%, assessed at short- (three months to < 12 months) and long-term (≥ 12 months) follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 parallel-arm RCTs that randomised 6925 participants to either low-carbohydrate or balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets. All trials were conducted in high-income countries except for one in China. Most participants (n = 5118 randomised) did not have T2DM. Mean baseline weight across trials was 95 kg (range 66 to 132 kg). Participants with T2DM were older (mean 57 years, range 50 to 65) than those without T2DM (mean 45 years, range 22 to 62). Most trials included men and women (42/61; 3/19 men only; 16/19 women only), and people without baseline cardiovascular conditions, risk factors or events (36/61). Mean baseline diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol across trials were within normal ranges. The longest weight-reducing phase of diets was two years in participants without and with T2DM. Evidence from studies with weight-reducing phases followed by weight-maintenance phases was limited. Most trials investigated low-carbohydrate diets (> 50 g to 150 g per day or < 45% of TE; n = 42), followed by very low (≤ 50 g per day or < 10% of TE; n = 14), and then incremental increases from very low to low (n = 5). The most common diets compared were low-carbohydrate, balanced-fat (20 to 35% of TE) and high-protein (> 20% of TE) treatment diets versus control diets balanced for the three macronutrients (24/61). In most trials (45/61) the energy prescription or approach used to restrict energy intake was similar in both groups. We assessed the overall risk of bias of outcomes across trials as predominantly high, mostly from bias due to missing outcome data. Using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of evidence as moderate to very low across outcomes.  Participants without and with T2DM lost weight when following weight-reducing phases of both diets at the short (range: 12.2 to 0.33 kg) and long term (range: 13.1 to 1.7 kg).  In overweight and obese participants without T2DM: low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets compared to balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets (weight-reducing phases only) probably result in little to no difference in change in body weight over three to 8.5 months (mean difference (MD) -1.07 kg, (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.55 to -0.59, I2 = 51%, 3286 participants, 37 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) and over one to two years (MD -0.93 kg, 95% CI -1.81 to -0.04, I2 = 40%, 1805 participants, 14 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence); as well as change in DBP and LDL cholesterol over one to two years. The evidence is very uncertain about whether there is a difference in the number of participants per group with weight loss of at least 5% at one year (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.31, I2 = 17%, 137 participants, 2 RCTs, very low-certainty evidence).  In overweight and obese participants with T2DM: low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets compared to balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets (weight-reducing phases only) probably result in little to no difference in change in body weight over three to six months (MD -1.26 kg, 95% CI -2.44 to -0.09, I2 = 47%, 1114 participants, 14 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) and over one to two years (MD -0.33 kg, 95% CI -2.13 to 1.46, I2 = 10%, 813 participants, 7 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence); as well in change in DBP, HbA1c and LDL cholesterol over 1 to 2 years. The evidence is very uncertain about whether there is a difference in the number of participants per group with weight loss of at least 5% at one to two years (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20, I2 = 0%, 106 participants, 2 RCTs, very low-certainty evidence).  Evidence on participant-reported adverse effects was limited, and we could not draw any conclusions about these.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is probably little to no difference in weight reduction and changes in cardiovascular risk factors up to two years' follow-up, when overweight and obese participants without and with T2DM are randomised to either low-carbohydrate or balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets.

Benefits of Low Carbohydrate Diets: a Settled Question or Still Controversial?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review was to provide an update on the available data on the benefits of low-carbohydrate (low-carb) diets for weight management and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and determine if low-carb diets were a settled question or still controversial.

RECENT FINDINGS

Most of the recent published literature in this area consists of reviews of past trials, with a relatively smaller number of recent trials. Low-carb is most commonly compared to low-fat, with problematically inconsistent definitions of both. There are numerous challenges in trying to draw clear conclusions about efficacy and effectiveness. Short-term vs. long-term effects can differ, which is likely impacted by adherence. Adherence is very different between metabolic chamber or feeding studies vs. free-living. Body weight alone is a crude measure that fails to capture potentially important differences in lean-mass, fat-mass, and body water. Benefits for glycemic control need to be balanced with impacts on non-glycemic outcomes such as LDL-cholesterol, the microbiome, and inflammation. It is important to differentiate between low-carb and very-low carbohydrate diets (VLCD). To date no large-scale long-term clinical trials have been conducted testing whether low-carb diets can prevent T2DM. Many issues regarding benefits and risks of low-carb diets remain controversial or unresolved, particularly for VLCD. Some of the recent, better studies highlighted in this review suggest strategies for resolving these controversies.

Efficacy of Dietary and Supplementation Interventions for Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes

The prevalence of Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is increasing, which creates a large economic burden. Diet is a critical factor in the treatment and management of T2D; however, there are a large number of dietary approaches and a general lack of consensus regarding the efficacy of each. Therefore, the purpose of this narrative review is twofold: (1) to critically evaluate the effects of various dietary strategies on diabetes management and treatment, such as Mediterranean diet, plant-based diet, low-calorie and very low-calorie diets, intermittent fasting, low-carbohydrate and very low-carbohydrate diets, and low glycemic diets and (2) to examine several purported supplements, such as protein, branched-chain amino acids, creatine, and vitamin D to improve glucose control and body composition. This review can serve as a resource for those wanting to evaluate the evidence supporting the various dietary strategies and supplements that may help manage T2D.

Supporting people to implement a reduced carbohydrate diet: a qualitative study in family practice

INTRODUCTION

Much of the science behind dietary guidelines for risk reduction and chronic disease management is equivocal, and there are well-accepted uncertainties and complexities relating to diet in everyday life, as well as physiological processes. Guidelines have therefore stopped short of aligning with one particular approach, instead highlighting several evidence-based options. However, reduced carbohydrate, or 'low-carb', diets have increasing traction in the media and with patients, practitioners and the general public. This qualitative study examines healthcare practitioner (HCP) experiences of implementing a reduced carbohydrate diet.

METHODS

Semistructured, qualitative interviews were conducted with 19 HCPs in the UK family practice (including general practitioners, practice nurses and non-medical practitioners), recruited through a special interest forum, and social media. Data analysis employed social science theory and methods to produce key themes.

RESULTS

All participants self-identified as 'low-carb practitioners' who, over time, had introduced a specific focus around carbohydrate reduction into their work. They reported transformations in patients' metabolic markers, patient enthusiasm for the approach and renewed job satisfaction. Key themes highlight experiences of: (1) discovering low-carb as a new 'tool-in-the-box'; (2) promoting and supporting incremental low-carb experimentation; and (3) diverging from established dietary guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides important experience-based evidence on a topical dietary intervention. Participants strongly advocated for the use of low-carb diets. The successes described draw attention to the need for pragmatic, formative evaluation of low-carb advice and support as a 'complex intervention' (alongside physiological research), to justify, challenge and/or shape low-carb intervention in clinical practice. The findings raise important questions about the contribution of particular care practices to the apparent success of low-carb. Social science analyses can elucidate how dietary intervention is carried out across different healthcare settings (eg, dietetics, endocrinology) and patient groups, how healthcare practices intersect with people's everyday self-management and how different forms of evidence are invoked and prioritised.