Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33916669›Full record

ReviewNutrients2021

The Low-Carbohydrate Diet: Short-Term Metabolic Efficacy Versus Longer-Term Limitations.

Thomas M Barber, Petra Hanson, Stefan Kabisch, Andreas F H Pfeiffer, Martin O Weickert

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas M BarberWarwickshire Institute for the Study of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK.
Petra HansonWarwickshire Institute for the Study of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK.
Stefan KabischDepartment of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Nutrition, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité University Medicine, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1792-1757
Andreas F H PfeifferDepartment of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Nutrition, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité University Medicine, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6887-0016
Martin O WeickertWarwickshire Institute for the Study of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4070-8164
University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust · GBCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHelmholtz Zentrum München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiets have been a central component of lifestyle modification for decades. The Low-Carbohydrate Diet (LCD), originally conceived as a treatment strategy for intractable epilepsy (due to its association with ketogenesis), became popular in the 1970s and since then has risen to prominence as a weight loss strategy.

objectiveTo explore the efficacy, limitations and potential safety concerns of the LCD. DATA SOURCES: We performed a narrative review, based on relevant articles written in English from a Pubmed search, using the terms 'low carbohydrate diet and metabolic health'.

resultsEvidence supports the efficacy of the LCD in the short-term (up to 6-months) for reduction in fat mass and remission of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2D). However, the longer-term efficacy of the LCD is disappointing, with diminishment of weight loss potential and metabolic benefits of the LCD beyond 6-months of its adoption. Furthermore, practical limitations of the LCD include the associated restriction of food choices that restrict the acceptability of the LCD for the individual, particularly over the longer term. There are also safety concerns of the LCD that stem from nutritional imbalances (with a relative excess of dietary fat and protein intake with associated dyslipidaemia and increased risk of insulin resistance and T2D development) and ketotic effects. Finally, the LCD often results in a reduction in dietary fibre intake, with potentially serious adverse consequences for overall health and the gut microbiota.

conclusionsAlthough widely adopted, the LCD usually has short-lived metabolic benefits, with limited efficacy and practicality over the longer term. Dietary modification needs tailoring to the individual, with careful a priori assessments of food preferences to ensure acceptability and adherence over the longer term, with avoidance of dietary imbalances and optimization of dietary fibre intake (primarily from plant-based fruit and vegetables), and with a posteriori assessments of the highly individual responses to the LCD. Finally, we need to change our view of diets from simply an excipient for weight loss to an essential component of a healthy lifestyle.

Indexed as

CarbohydratesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Dietary CarbohydratesDietary FatsDietary ProteinsDiet, Carbohydrate-RestrictedHumansObesityRemission InductionTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeWeight LossCarbohydratesDietary CarbohydratesDietary FatsDietary Proteinsfat massketogenesisLow-Carbohydrate DietType 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Identifiers

PMID33916669
PMCPMC8066770
OpenAlexW3143695064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.