• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Another study supportive of the ketogenic diet

The initial BMI, and the BMI after the eighth, 16th and 24th week were 37.77±0.79 kg/m2, 33.90±0.83 kg/m2, 33.24±1.00 kg/m2 and 32.06±1.13 kg/m2, respectively (Figure 2).
Click to expand...
The largest drop was in the first 8 weeks, but it looks like a milder downward trend continued after that. And standard deviations are pretty low, which indicates that the weight loss was fairly consistent for most participants, versus numbers going down due a few extreme cases. LDL, triglycerides, and blood glucose followed a similar pattern, while HDL rose in the first 16 weeks then stayed steady through week 24.

The size really isn't too bad. They don't have controls, however, which is especially relevant because they introduced another variable in the form of multivitamins. And they don't seem to have corrected their statistics due to making multiple comparisons ... but with so few comparisons mad and all showing pretty consistent improvements, it doesn't really undermine the results. A scatterpoint graph, showing results for all participants on at least some of the outcomes, is generally preferred as well - it could have been incorporated into the means graphs if publishing space was limited.
 
A 13 year old study, it would be more use to know if any of the subjects continued with the diet and or have managed to maintain their weight loss, other wise all this shows is that diets work in the short term.
 
A little more about the protocol:
All 83 subjects received the ketogenic diet consisting of 20 g to 30 g of carbohydrate in the form of green vegetables and salad, and 80 g to 100 g of protein in the form of meat, fish, fowl, eggs, shellfish and cheese. Polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats were also included in the diet. Twelve weeks later, an additional 20 g of carbohydrate were added to the meal of the patients to total 40 g to 50 g of carbohydrate. Micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) were given to each subject in the form of one capsule per day (Table 2).
Click to expand...
So carbs were added at week 12, which would explain the slowed weight loss, etc, for weeks 16 and 24.

Hopefully they can follow up with a longer-term controlled study.
 
Sid Bonkers said:
A 13 year old study, it would be more use to know if any of the subjects continued with the diet and or have managed to maintain their weight loss, other wise all this shows is that diets work in the short term.
Click to expand...

The fear of fat that still permeates western medicine dates from a study published in 1956...
6 months is short term for some but most studies last a week or a month and still make claims on that basis this is at least a bit longer term.

Regards
M
 
bulkbiker said:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/

Small number but great results and over 24 weeks.
Click to expand...
Good Morning
Thank you for pointing that research out, very interesting and significant, I feel. Do you know why it took 13 years to be published?
I am puzzled by the diet structure, ie 50-30g carbs, 80-100g protein (both dependent on body mass), but for fats all I can find is 20% sat and 80% PUSF+MUSF, not the total fat mass. Have I missed something?
Perhaps it is a sign of the aversion to fat that is still current?
 
BrianTheElder said:
I am puzzled by the diet structure, ie 50-30g carbs, 80-100g protein (both dependent on body mass), but for fats all I can find is 20% sat and 80% PUSF+MUSF, not the total fat mass. Have I missed something?
Click to expand...
The impression I got is that they didn't have limitations on fat intake, so long as it was only 20% saturated.
 
The study lists a specific fat intake: 20% saturated fat, and 80% polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat.

Does that make a difference? Do we know why they chose that method?
 
BrianTheElder said:
Good Morning
Thank you for pointing that research out, very interesting and significant, I feel. Do you know why it took 13 years to be published?
I am puzzled by the diet structure, ie 50-30g carbs, 80-100g protein (both dependent on body mass), but for fats all I can find is 20% sat and 80% PUSF+MUSF, not the total fat mass. Have I missed something?
Perhaps it is a sign of the aversion to fat that is still current?
Click to expand...

I don't think it took 13 years to come out..I only saw it on another site yesterday so thought people here might be interested.
I think it was originally published in 2004.
The usual keto way is less than 20g of carbs somewhere between 0.6 and 1.5g of protein per kg of lean body mass and fat to satiety.. so I'm guessing this was the protocol that was followed. Obviously adding in the extra carbs mid way through probably messed up some of the benefits although weight loss continued. Not sure why this was done.
It is the first (only?) study I have seen, apart from a huge number of personal anecdotes, that really followed a relatively "pure" ketogenic diet. Most make the high fat part some crazy lump of fat like processed veg oils or the like.
 
Back
Top