Meta-analysis of low carb

[cz_dave]

I have stumbled upon an interesting scientific paper analysing the findings of various studies examining low carb diets.

"In the present meta-analysis that included dietary interventions on individuals with increased BMI, but regarded as otherwise as healthy, we found a greater weight loss in subjects on the LC diet compared with subjects on the LF diet, more favourable changes in HDL-cholesterol and TAG levels and less favourable changes in LDL-cholesterol levels. However, none of the studies examined effects of the LC diet on hard end points, such as CHD and mortality, and it is therefore impossible to draw conclusions in this regard. Nevertheless, as LDL-cholesterol is highly atherogenic, we raise the question whether LC diets may increase morbidity and mortality in the long term. Thus, there is a need for studies of longer duration investigating effects on hard end points. Further investigations are needed, and may contribute to an improved understanding of the large variability in individual response to dietary intervention."

 

[Oldvatr]

I have stumbled upon an interesting scientific paper analysing the findings of various studies examining low carb diets.

"In the present meta-analysis that included dietary interventions on individuals with increased BMI, but regarded as otherwise as healthy, we found a greater weight loss in subjects on the LC diet compared with subjects on the LF diet, more favourable changes in HDL-cholesterol and TAG levels and less favourable changes in LDL-cholesterol levels. However, none of the studies examined effects of the LC diet on hard end points, such as CHD and mortality, and it is therefore impossible to draw conclusions in this regard. Nevertheless, as LDL-cholesterol is highly atherogenic, we raise the question whether LC diets may increase morbidity and mortality in the long term. Thus, there is a need for studies of longer duration investigating effects on hard end points. Further investigations are needed, and may contribute to an improved understanding of the large variability in individual response to dietary intervention."

This meta study uses published RCT data only up to 28 May 2015, so misses the recent published studies that came out in 2016 and 2017, which did examine the effect of Cholesterol levels and morbidity. In general these new studies showed that the previously held view that low LDL is best has been shown to be a weak case for statin therapy, and that for older people then a higher LDL level seemed to be safer, Another study showed that women had little benefit from statins. So things are in a state of flux now.

The paper you linked to here is aimed at those healthy people using an LC or LF diet for weight loss, and excluded diabetics and CVD sufferers specifically. It demonstrates that an LC diet seems to be more effective for losing the weight, but did not investigate the health implications to any great extent. Therefore using it to make any conclusions about the safety of LC is not supported by the test methodology. There are other RCT trials and other Meta studies that do that quite well.

Edit to add: Their statement that LDL is highly atherogenic is IMHO wrong. LDL is an essential part of our lipid pathway, and we would die without it. It is damaged LDL that seems to be the cause of atherial sclerosis, and this is now identified as being sLDL which is actually not measured as LDL, but falls into the Triglycerides portion of the standard GP blood test, The other components that make up LDL, namely VLDL, LDL and chylomicrons, are large molecular structures that transport lipids, and the body handles these components very well. sLDL is damaged, or oxidised LDL that the HDL no longer recognises, so is unable to clean out of our blood supply via the liver and kidneys. These fragments of LDL are what can create aterial narrowing simply because the HDLfails to hoover them up.

 

[AndBreathe]

I have stumbled upon an interesting scientific paper analysing the findings of various studies examining low carb diets.

"In the present meta-analysis that included dietary interventions on individuals with increased BMI, but regarded as otherwise as healthy, we found a greater weight loss in subjects on the LC diet compared with subjects on the LF diet, more favourable changes in HDL-cholesterol and TAG levels and less favourable changes in LDL-cholesterol levels. However, none of the studies examined effects of the LC diet on hard end points, such as CHD and mortality, and it is therefore impossible to draw conclusions in this regard. Nevertheless, as LDL-cholesterol is highly atherogenic, we raise the question whether LC diets may increase morbidity and mortality in the long term. Thus, there is a need for studies of longer duration investigating effects on hard end points. Further investigations are needed, and may contribute to an improved understanding of the large variability in individual response to dietary intervention."

cz_dave - Have you watched any of Professor Sikaris's presentations on lipids? He often mentions LDL.

 

[cz_dave]

This meta study uses published RCT data only up to 28 May 2015, so misses the recent published studies that came out in 2016 and 2017, which did examine the effect of Cholesterol levels and morbidity. In general these new studies showed that the previously held view that low LDL is best has been shown to be a weak case for statin therapy, and that for older people then a higher LDL level seemed to be safer, Another study showed that women had little benefit from statins. So things are in a state of flux now.

The paper you linked to here is aimed at those healthy people using an LC or LF diet for weight loss, and excluded diabetics and CVD sufferers specifically. It demonstrates that an LC diet seems to be more effective for losing the weight, but did not investigate the health implications to any great extent. Therefore using it to make any conclusions about the safety of LC is not supported by the test methodology. There are other RCT trials and other Meta studies that do that quite well.

Edit to add: Their statement that LDL is highly atherogenic is IMHO wrong. LDL is an essential part of our lipid pathway, and we would die without it. It is damaged LDL that seems to be the cause of atherial sclerosis, and this is now identified as being sLDL which is actually not measured as LDL, but falls into the Triglycerides portion of the standard GP blood test, The other components that make up LDL, namely VLDL, LDL and chylomicrons, are large molecular structures that transport lipids, and the body handles these components very well. sLDL is damaged, or oxidised LDL that the HDL no longer recognises, so is unable to clean out of our blood supply via the liver and kidneys. These fragments of LDL are what can create aterial narrowing simply because the HDLfails to hoover them up.

Any chance you could link to the studies you mention?

 

[cz_dave]

cz_dave - Have you watched any of Professor Sikaris's presentations on lipids? He often mentions LDL.

Yes, I did, interesting stuff.

 

[Oldvatr]

Any chance you could link to the studies you mention?

Most of them were posted on the DCNEWSBOT thread, and have been repeated in many threadx where they were discussed. I do not keep a libary as such. Suggest you use the site search function to look for keywords

 

[Winnie53]

I have stumbled upon an interesting scientific paper analysing the findings of various studies examining low carb diets.

"In the present meta-analysis that included dietary interventions on individuals with increased BMI, but regarded as otherwise as healthy, we found a greater weight loss in subjects on the LC diet compared with subjects on the LF diet, more favourable changes in HDL-cholesterol and TAG levels and less favourable changes in LDL-cholesterol levels. However, none of the studies examined effects of the LC diet on hard end points, such as CHD and mortality, and it is therefore impossible to draw conclusions in this regard. Nevertheless, as LDL-cholesterol is highly atherogenic, we raise the question whether LC diets may increase morbidity and mortality in the long term. Thus, there is a need for studies of longer duration investigating effects on hard end points. Further investigations are needed, and may contribute to an improved understanding of the large variability in individual response to dietary intervention."

I think we know now that elevated glucose levels, not healthy fats, are the problem. The low carb diet does an excellent job of raising HDL and dramatically reducing triglycerides, also in increasing the size of the LDL, which is desirable.

Edited to add: That said, ketogenic diet researchers Volek and Phinney found through their research that 10% of low carb ketogenic diet study participants did not do well on the LCKD, which validates for me that there is no one diet that works for everyone. For me personally, I alternate between LCHF and LCKD, but I greatly limit dairy, which results in a better lipid profile for me. We're all different.

 

[nickm]

I have stumbled upon an interesting scientific paper analysing the findings of various studies examining low carb diets.

"none of the studies examined effects of the LC diet on hard end points."

A diet which has been used by diabetics for centuries and is currently used by literally millions around the world, yet there is no good research on it.
Of course not. No drug company wants to fund research that will show their drugs are unnecessary. And no researcher wants to do research which will embarrass a major sponsor.

 

[cz_dave]

Exactly. Isn't that amazing?