Review
Efficacy of low carbohydrate diet for type 2 diabetes mellitus management: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2017.07.006Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Trials in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus revealed inconsistent results.

  • This meta-analysis is the first one to evaluate the efficacy of low carbohydrate diet for type 2 diabetes management.

  • The low carbohydrate diet intervention had a positive effect on HbA1c, triglycerides and HDL cholesterol concentrations.

  • Short term intervention of low carbohydrate diet was effective for weight loss.

Abstract

Aims

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy of Low Carbohydrate Diet (LCD) compared with a normal or high carbohydrate diet in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library database for randomized controlled trials. Researches which reported the change in weight loss, blood glucose, and blood lipid levels were included.

Results

A total of 9 studies with 734 patients with diabetes were included. Pooled results suggested that LCD had a significantly effect on HbA1c level (WMD: −0.44; 95% CI: −0.61, −0.26; P = 0.00). For cardiovascular risk factors, the LCD intervention significantly reduced triglycerides concentration (WMD: −0.33; 95% CI: −0.45, −0.21; P = 0.00) and increased HDL cholesterol concentration (WMD: 0.07; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.11; P = 0.00). But the LCD was not associated with decreased level of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol. Subgroup analyses indicated that short term intervention of LCD was effective for weight loss (WMD: −1.18; 95% CI: −2.32, −0.04; P = 0.04).

Conclusions

The results suggested a beneficial effect of LCD intervention on glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. The LCD intervention also had a positive effect on triglycerides and HDL cholesterol concentrations, but without significant effect on long term weight loss.

Introduction

Diabetes mellitus is the dominant cause of a range of complications and death worldwide. Approximately 422 million people are living with diabetes in 2014 [1]. Type 2 diabetes patients usually accompanied with overweight or obesity, and excessive body mass index (BMI) increases result in the risk of diabetes rises [2]. A traditional diet of energy-restriction, high-carbohydrate, low-fat and low-protein have been recommended for the weight loss of diabetes patients [3]. However, in recent years, studies demonstrate that dietary carbohydrates are a major factor in blood glucose control, and it can aggravate postprandial glucose responses [4], [5]. Therefore, the program of carbohydrate restriction was proposed to use to lose weight in many studies, and the efficacy of low carbohydrate diet (LCD) for diabetes management also has been widely discussed by researchers.

The LCD is a program which carbohydrate intake is less than 130 g/day or 26% of daily energy from carbohydrates [4]. Previous studies indicate that LCD can reduce blood glucose and body fat, improve insulin sensitivity, and decrease triglyceride and cholesterol levels among patients with diabetes [6], [7], [8], [9]. In a randomized controlled trial (RCT), intervention with LCD has been found to reduce weight, HbA1c, and the level of fasting insulin [10]. Moreover, based on the present researches, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) considers that LCD is similarly effective for weight loss compared with low-fat calorie-restricted diets [11].

But, over the past decades, the issue of carbohydrate restriction has still been a controversial problem, particularly in patients with type 2 diabetes. Although dietary carbohydrates increase postprandial blood glucose levels, total carbohydrate restriction will not return the blood glucose to the normal range [5]. According to the research by Davis et al., one year LCD intervention has a similar effect on weight loss and glycemic control compared with a low-fat diet [12]. Other several studies concern that low-carbohydrate high-fat diet may aggravate the lipid profile, cardiovascular risk factors of patients with diabetes [13]. Two cohort studies indicate that the LCD group based on animal source protein has a greater increase in all-cause mortality [14].

Thus, considering the potential efficacy of LCD in type 2 diabetes management, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to evaluate the overall effect of LCD on weight loss, blood glucose, and blood lipid concentrations in diabetic patients.

Section snippets

Literature search

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database from inception through January 2017. There were no publication time and language restriction. The relevant articles were identified using the following search items: (“low carbohydrate diet” OR “ketogenic diet” OR “Atkins diet”) AND (“diabetes” OR “diabetes mellitus”). In addition, we searched reference lists of included studies and other potentially relevant studies. We would request original information from the authors by e-mail

Results of the literature search

Fig. 1 shows the flow diagram of the study selection process. We initially identified 2322 potentially study in the literature search, of which 611 were duplicates articles. After title and abstract review, 1676 were excluded because the studies did not meet the inclusion criteria. Among the remaining studies, 6 were non-RCTs, 3 were systematic review and 2 trials did not report the relevant outcomes. The target population of 3 studies was not type 2 diabetes. Finally, full-text assessment of

Discussion

Our meta-analysis is the first one to evaluate the efficacy of LCD for type 2 diabetes management. Nine RCTs with 734 participants were included in our current research. The finding from this meta-analysis suggested that LCD intervention had a positive effect on HbA1c, TG, and HDL-c concentrations. There was no significant efficacy of LCD in improving TC and LDL-c concentrations. The result also indicated that LCD intervention reduced the body weight of patients, but it did not achieve

Conclusion

In conclusion, LCD intervention showed a beneficial effect on improving HbA1c level compared with the high or normal carbohydrate dietary, suggesting LCD might be effective for type 2 diabetes management. The result also suggested that LCD may be beneficial to cardiovascular risk factors, according to summaries of data of TG and HDL-c concentrations. But, there was no evidence to show that LCD was effective for reducing TC and LDL-c concentrations. Although no significant association was found

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Funding source

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant No. 81470498].

References (35)

  • A. Accurso et al.

    Dietary carbohydrate restriction in type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome: time for a critical appraisal

    Nutrit Metabol

    (2008)
  • N.F. Sheard et al.

    Dietary carbohydrate (amount and type) in the prevention and management of diabetes: a statement by the american diabetes association

    Diabetes Care

    (2004)
  • G. Boden et al.

    Effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on appetite, blood glucose levels, and insulin resistance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes

    Ann Intern Med

    (2005)
  • W.S. Yancy et al.

    A low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet to treat type 2 diabetes

    Nutrit Metabol

    (2005)
  • D.F. O’Neill et al.

    The effects of a low-carbohydrate regimen on glycemic control and serum lipids in diabetes mellitus

    Metab Synd Relat Disord

    (2003)
  • J. Wylie-Rosett et al.

    Low-carbohydrate diets: an update on current research

    Curr DiabRep

    (2009)
  • E.C. Westman et al.

    The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus

    Nutrit Metabol

    (2008)
  • Cited by (138)

    • Endocrine

      2023, Ketogenic: The Science of Therapeutic Carbohydrate Restriction in Human Health
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    The authors contribute equally to this paper.

    View full text