Data from various studies demonstrate that even a modest loss of 5–10% of initial body weight may significantly improve glycemic control, hyperinsulinemia and other metabolic abnormalities [13
]. In the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP)
and the Finnish trials, lifestyle intervention including modest weight loss was effective in preventing the development of diabetes in a high risk population [15
]. Weight control, per se
, is thus a critical component for achieving glycemic control, improving insulin resistance and modifying CVD risk in patients with diabetes and insulin resistance as well as for diabetes prevention [14
Traditionally, increased fat intake has been considered as the main cause for excess energy intake and obesity but the trends in food intake during the obesity epidemic do not support this notion [2
]. While fat intake has decreased, carbohydrate intake has increased simultaneously. This rise in dietary intake of carbohydrates, and especially highly refined carbohydrate, is a likely culprit in promoting weight gain and obesity [19
Weight change is governed by two factors: caloric balance and macronutrient composition. The first has general agreement and the expectation is that any hypocaloric diet, should be effective in achieving weight loss [20
]. As noted above, LoCHO or VLCKD are frequently intentionally or spontaneously low calorie. The second consideration, macronutrient composition, is more controversial. Comparisons of isocaloric diets of different macronutrient composition frequently show no difference in effectiveness but there are several examples where distinct advantages accrue to one of the diets, usually the low carbohydrate arm [21
In a recent study [21
], for example, significantly greater weight loss was demonstrated with low carbohydrate intervention (< 10% calories from carbohydrates) despite higher caloric intake (1855 kcal/day) compared to high carbohydrate (60% calories from carbohydrates) with lower caloric intake (1562 kcal/day). There are several other reports indicating metabolic advantage in low carbohydrate diets over short term (3–6 months) [8
]. Significant reductions in fat mass including truncal fat, which is a marker for visceral obesity, have been demonstrated in many studies [9
]. A recent report [30
] indicates that the effect will be seen primarily in subjects with insulin resistance. The association of insulin resistance with diabetes makes this of great importance.
Although the exact mechanism for this metabolic advantage is unknown, it is has been attributed to greater thermogenic effect of proteins in the face of increased demand for gluconeogenesis, increased futile cycling and increase in mitochondrial uncoupling [21
]. Despite evidence suggesting more weight loss with isocaloric low carbohydrate diets, the issue of metabolic inefficiency with low carbohydrate dietary interventions is controversial and still not universally accepted.
The data for long term effectiveness of LoCHO diet is limited to studies with small sample size, poor adherence to dietary assignment in all dietary groups and inability to control the dietary carbohydrate amount over longer duration, making it difficult to demonstrate an appreciable difference between the dietary interventions. It is important to stress, however, that the same disclaimer must be made for low fat diets. Whereas calorie reduction by any means will lead to weight loss, the only comparisons of low fat diets are exactly the ones with low carbohydrate diets and few researchers would maintain that low fat diets have great compliance or long term effects that can be attributed to the particular regimen [31
]. Two of the low carbohydrate-low fat comparisons were continued for 1 year [8
]. It is frequently cited that the difference in weight loss between the LoCHO diet and low fat diet was not statistically significant after one year but it should be pointed out that in these studies, participants had the freedom to increase the carbohydrate content of the diet over longer duration and it is reasonable to say that as carbohydrate is added back to the diet, its effectiveness wanes. For example, in the study by Foster et al. [8
], there was no significant difference in the urinary ketone levels between the two study groups after 3 months, suggesting inadequate carbohydrate restriction during the later part of the study which would contribute to the similarity in various parameters between the groups. In addition, the authors of these studies included subjects who had dropped out of the study. This method, justified under the name "intention to treat analysis"
obscures the information in the study and has the effect of making the more effective diet look worse. In another recent study [32
] comparing the effects of four popular diets including LoCHO diet and low fat diet, there were no significant differences in weight loss in the different groups at the end of 1 year. However, this study also had the shortcomings of the above studies, including small sample size (40 subjects in each group) and poor adherence in all the groups (30–60% dropouts). The LoCHO diet group also failed to reach carbohydrate reduction goal with carbohydrate intake of 190 gm/day at 6 months and 12 months as compared to baseline of 239 gm/day. Hence, it is not surprising that weight loss was not significantly different in LoCHO diet group. What is encouraging is that despite such marginal carbohydrate restriction in the LoCHO group, this group was able to achieve a modest weight loss that was comparable to the other diet groups, while maintaining a greater improvement in lipid profile suggesting that even minimal carbohydrate restriction may have beneficial effects in term of weight loss and might be offered to those at high risk who fail to lose weight with traditional low fat diet.