Little Evidence to Support Low-Carbohydrate Diets

Dr of Golf

New member
From this week's MEDSCAPE Medical News

Little Evidence to Support Low-Carbohydrate Diets

News Author: Laurie Barclay, MD
Clinical Reviewer: Gary Vogin, MD
CME Editor: Bernard M. Sklar, MD, MS



April 8, 2003 — Low-carbohydrate diets have been all the rage lately, but a systematic review published in the April 9 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association reveals insufficient evidence to support or refute the concept thus far. The bottom line appears to be that a calorie is a calorie. The editorialist reviews the issue of adult weight loss.

"Recently, low-carbohydrate diets have resurged in popularity as a means of rapid weight loss, yet their long-term efficacy and safety remain poorly understood," write Dena M. Bravata, MD, MS, from the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research in Stamford, California, and colleagues. "Our results demonstrated the marked discordance between the knowledge needed to guide dietary choices and the information that is available in the medical literature."

Although millions of copies of three books on low-carbohydrate diets have sold in the U.S. over the past five years, the American Dietetic Association, the American Heart Association, and other professional organizations have warned the public against potentially serious medical consequences of these diets.

The investigators searched the literature for studies of low-carbohydrate diets published between 1966 and February 2003. They identified 107 articles reporting data on 3,268 participants, of whom 663 patients received lower-carbohydrate diets (60 grams of carbohydrates per day [g/d] or less), and 71 patients received the lowest-carbohydrate diets containing 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates, which is the recommended threshold for some of the most popular diets.

None of the studies evaluated diets of 60 g/d or less of carbohydrates in subjects with a mean age older than 53 years, and only five studies evaluated these diets for more than 90 days. Weight loss in obese patients was associated with longer diet duration (P = .002) and restriction of calorie intake (P = .03), but not with reduced carbohydrate content. Low-carbohydrate diets had no significant adverse effects on serum lipid levels, fasting serum glucose levels, fasting serum insulin levels, or blood pressure.

"Our quantitative synthesis...on the efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets suggests that there is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of these diets," the authors write. "We found insufficient evidence to conclude that lower-carbohydrate content is independently associated with greater weight loss compared with higher-carbohydrate content.... Given the limited evidence in this review, when lower-carbohydrate diets result in weight loss, it also is likely due to the restriction of calorie intake and longer duration rather than carbohydrate intake."

The investigators recommend additional research evaluating the long-term effects and consequences of low-carbohydrate diets in both older and younger subjects with and without diabetes, high cholesterol, and hypertension.

None of the authors has financial or other conflicts of interest concerning low-carbohydrate diets or diet projects. No manufacturer or vendor of dietary goods or services funded this study.

In an accompanying editorial, George A. Bray, MD, from Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, notes that the worldwide epidemic of obesity will be followed by a worldwide epidemic of diabetes.

"The broader issue of whether a unique diet exists that will produce long-term weight loss has yet to be evaluated," he writes. "Although the truth of 'a calorie is a calorie' has been reaffirmed by [this review], the question of whether patients can adhere more easily to one type of diet or another remains to be answered."

JAMA. 2003;289:1837-1850, 1853-1855



.
 
There is no magic to ketosis.

Perhaps the initial water-weight loss that accompanies ketosis gives dieters a sense of accomplishment and they are thus more likely to continue.

In the long run, though, I doubt any this weight will stay off in most circumstances.
 
i'm also guessing that depleted glycogen in muscle contributes to some weight loss and a flatter look, this might fool ppl into thinking they've lost fat
 
Dr of Golf said:
From this week's MEDSCAPE Medical News

[
"Our quantitative synthesis...on the efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets suggests that there is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of these diets," the authors write. "We found insufficient evidence to conclude that lower-carbohydrate content is independently associated with greater weight loss compared with higher-carbohydrate content.... Given the limited evidence in this review, when lower-carbohydrate diets result in weight loss, it also is likely due to the restriction of calorie intake and longer duration rather than carbohydrate intake."


so basically they're saying they don't know.

i see.
 
Little evidence huh ...? I've loss plenty of "evidence" on keto diets. They work great for fat loss.
 
I guess it's hard for me to say as I'm always fairly little, but I personally look and feel better on less carbs. I tend to be less worn out....though I cycle them depending on my workout schedule. Even if I'm keeping my carbs low, which I tend to (not even intentionally) I have a big carb up day once every week or two.

Perhaps I also lean towards less carbs because they make me retain water like crazy. I've experiemented with my diet a lot over the last couple of years and am just about to alter my diet again.
 
on a low carb diet i lost alot of weight for sure
deffo mostly water weight and possibly fat/glycogen?

Anyway i felt ok energy wise but my muscles would get fatigued quicker than usual and I found it hard to sleep for some reason
I've now upped to moderate carbs moderate fat high protein (40/30/30)
I' doing tonnes of cardio and never looked better.
I'd personally rather be able to give 110% in training and get a more ripped look that way then by the dieting since im an amateur athlete
 
i have been doing the low carb diet thing for about a month now (100 grams a day) and have gone from 180 to 173 in weight. 13% to 11.5% so some of this is fat not just water so i am pleased with it. i have been been increasing carbs to 300 every fourth day and then right back down to 100 the next three.
(thanks from the advice from nutri-wrestler)

have had no strength loss either which is a good sign. so far so good on this diet.
 
No evidence?? See my before/after pic in Pictures of members section for evidence. I owe that fat loss to low carbing.

That ain't initial water loss!! LMFAO!!
 
DOS said:
how much weigt you loose depends on how many calories you burn each day and how many you consume. it has 0 to do with what macronutrients you eat. in some instances it is better to eat carbs (when leptin is low).

Yes but I think you are overlooking the muscle sparing properties of a ketosis diet. You can of course lose weight on any diet if there is a calorie deficit, but the question is where are you losing the weight from? muscle or fat.
 
n8dawg said:
i have been doing the low carb diet thing for about a month now (100 grams a day) and have gone from 180 to 173 in weight. 13% to 11.5% so some of this is fat not just water so i am pleased with it. i have been been increasing carbs to 300 every fourth day and then right back down to 100 the next three.
(thanks from the advice from nutri-wrestler)

have had no strength loss either which is a good sign. so far so good on this diet.

I don't see anyway you could be practicing a genuine low-carb diet bro, when the purpose of the diet, is to get your carb intake low enough so that the body switches over to burning FAT as its' primary source for energy. At 100 grams of carbs/day, I see no way you could possibly be in Ketosis(fat-burning), as you are at 3X the maximum suggested intake for carbs with the diet, on depletion days. You are still in glucosis. If you still lost weight, then good job, but my guess would be that it was due to decreased caloric intake, rather than decreased carbs.
 
Last edited:
skedmedz it is possible for your body to adapt to a fat burning as opposed to sugar burning state on that many carbs

Dr Greg Ellis has conducted studies and drawn the line at somewhere at 25% max calories from carbs for u to be a fat burner, he says 13% is the optimum though
 
the nature broly said:
doens't mention if these people work out or not. that may play a factor.

My thoughts exactly. I'm thinking this report applies to someone overweight and lethargic and inactive achieving weight loss by means of an "Atkins" type approach.

I do not see how it relates to the members of this board.
 
Before I got lifting again, I lost 25 lbs in 3 weeks on Atkins and didn't gain any of it back until I upped my calorie intake and started generally goofing off with my diet (which was maybe 3 months later). That was when I did zero exercise, and was basically on my way to being a fat office worker.

I did it again just recently, and wound up losing about 5 lbs in 2 weeks. The first week I was using ECA, but stopped cause I was feeling light headed whenever I'd stand up. I was also lifting my regular routine, and chasing dogs around a yard for 12 hours a week. The diet was also much easier to stick to this time, though I ate 42 pop tarts the day after the diet completed. :eek:

I'm a believer in the whole low-carb thing, for people that work out and even more so for those that don't based on my own experiences. I'll probably give the ckd diet a shot starting on Monday, and see how it compares.
 
rubberduckyo said:


I do not see how it relates to the members of this board.


It was presented for informational purposes. Some folks like to read, digest the information, and then decide for themselves if it may work for them or not. Information and learning is a good thing. Hope that some members have made their own decisions on the diet thing. :)
 
Dr of Golf said:
It was presented for informational purposes. Some folks like to read, digest the information, and then decide for themselves if it may work for them or not. Information and learning is a good thing. Hope that some members have made their own decisions on the diet thing. :)

It was an excellent post. My comment on "as it applies to members" was not directed towards your post. Rather the results of the study. I apologize if it sounded as if I was saying the info was un-informative. It was. :)
 
"low carb diets"

Great post, however...unfortunately for the author much of the information is biased and misinterpreted. In reality low carb diets have worked for decades and competitive bodybuilding is your proof...not just professional I am talking amateur and natural comps as well. To say low carb diets do not work is utterly rediculous with the evidence staring you in the face!!!!

Don't take my word for it..why not ask some experts.

Brad King-Fat Wars
Dr. Mauro D Pasquale-metabolic diet
Udo Erasmus- fats that heal fats that kill
Jay Robb- jayyrobb.com
Mr X- massmonters.com
Chris Aceto
Charles Glass
Frank Zane
etc, etc

Peace,
P
 
Back
Top