SynthesisThe lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology2015
Effect of low-fat diet interventions versus other diet interventions on long-term weight change in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05181176 (Effect of Coffee and Tea Consumption on Adolescent Weight Control - a Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 154 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Effect of Coffee and Tea Consumption on Adolescent Weight Control - a Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
154 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 367 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Low-Fat Diet Combined with Different Exercise Interventions on Weight Loss Maintenance in Adults: A Network Meta-Analysis.Endocrine · 2026Pooled it
- The effect of low-fat diets on appetite: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Nutrition and Exercise Interventions to Improve Body Composition for Persons with Overweight or Obesity Near Retirement Age: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness of single foods and food groups on body weight: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 152 randomized controlled trials.European journal of nutrition · 2023Pooled it
- Very low carbohydrate (ketogenic) diets in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of dietary and physical activity behaviors in women with and without polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 39 471 women.Human reproduction update · 2022Pooled it
- Intermittent Fasting versus Continuous Calorie Restriction: Which Is Better for Weight Loss?Nutrients · 2022Pooled it
- Long Term Weight Loss Diets and Obesity Indices: Results of a Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- Effects of low-carbohydrate diets versus low-fat diets on metabolic risk factors in overweight and obese adults: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- Guideline
- The Relationship of Tree Nuts and Peanuts with Adiposity Parameters: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Nutrients · 2021Pooled it
- The Effect of Low-Fat and Low-Carbohydrate Diets on Weight Loss and Lipid Levels: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Nutrients · 2020Pooled it
- Effects of Popular Diets on Anthropometric and Cardiometabolic Parameters: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2020Pooled it
- Risk of Adverse Outcomes in Females Taking Oral Creatine Monohydrate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Nutrients · 2020Pooled it
- Impact of isocaloric exchanges of carbohydrate for fat on postprandial glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and free fatty acid responses-a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2020Pooled it
- Updated Cardiovascular Prevention Guideline of the Brazilian Society of Cardiology - 2019.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2019Guideline
- [Olive Oil and Body Weight. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials].Revista espanola de salud publica · 2018Pooled it
- Effects of weight loss interventions for adults who are obese on mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Pooled it
- Exploring Biases of the Healthy Eating Index and Alternative Healthy Eating Index When Scoring Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diets.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2024Trial
- Effects of Human Milk Oligosaccharide 2'-Fucosyllactose Ingestion on Weight Loss and Markers of Health.Nutrients · 2024Trial
94 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness of low-fat diets for long-term weight loss has been debated for decades, with many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and recent reviews giving mixed results. We aimed to summarise the large body of evidence from RCTs to determine whether low-fat diets contribute to greater weight loss than participants' usual diet, low-carbohydrate diets, and other higher-fat dietary interventions.
methodsWe did a systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the long-term effect (≥1 year) of low-fat and higher-fat dietary interventions on weight loss by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify eligible trials published from database inception up until July 31, 2014. We excluded trials if one intervention group included a non-dietary weight loss component but the other did not, and trials of dietary supplements or meal replacement drink interventions. Data including the main outcome measure of mean difference in weight change between interventions, and whether interventions were intended to lead to weight loss, weight maintenance, or neither, were extracted from published reports. We estimated the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) with a DerSimonian and Laird random effects method.
findings3517 citations were identified by the search and 53 studies met our inclusion criteria, including 68 128 participants (69 comparisons). In weight loss trials, low-carbohydrate interventions led to significantly greater weight loss than did low-fat interventions (18 comparisons; WMD 1·15 kg [95% CI 0·52 to 1·79]; I(2)=10%). Low-fat interventions did not lead to differences in weight change compared with other higher-fat weight loss interventions (19 comparisons; WMD 0·36 kg [-0·66 to 1·37; I(2)=82%), and led to a greater weight decrease only when compared with a usual diet (eight comparisons; -5·41 kg [-7·29 to -3·54]; I(2)=68%). Similarly, results of non-weight-loss trials and weight maintenance trials, for which no low-carbohydrate comparisons were made, showed that low-fat versus higher-fat interventions have a similar effect on weight loss, and that low-fat interventions led to greater weight loss only when compared with usual diet. In weight loss trials, higher-fat weight loss interventions led to significantly greater weight loss than low-fat interventions when groups differed by more than 5% of calories obtained from fat at follow-up (18 comparisons; WMD 1·04 kg [95% CI 0·06 to 2·03]; I(2)=78%), and when the difference in serum triglycerides between the two interventions at follow-up was at least 0·06 mmol/L (17 comparisons; 1·38 kg [0·50 to 2·25]; I(2)=62%).
interpretationThese findings suggest that the long-term effect of low-fat diet intervention on bodyweight depends on the intensity of the intervention in the comparison group. When compared with dietary interventions of similar intensity, evidence from RCTs does not support low-fat diets over other dietary interventions for long-term weight loss.
fundingNational Institutes of Health and American Diabetes Association.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.