As you consider this study, also consider the ground we've covered as regards LDL, small dense LDL, LDL measurement error, and relevance of LDL as a CVD risk factor (vice HDL/Total Chol. ratio, or TG/HDL ratio). The low carb group lost ~3 kilos more weight, 2 kilos more fat, showed a greater reduction in triglycerides, greater increase in HDL, and also a predictable increase in LDL. The only number that surprises or would concern me is the 'insignificantly' greater increase in apolipoprotein B. These numbers are otherwise "all good," and comport well with what my experience shows happens when folks use carbohydrate restriction. I would have liked seeing the numbers for fasting insulin levels and fasting blood sugars in the abstract.
BLUF: "Eat meat and vegetables, nuts and seeds some fruit little starch and no sugar." www.crossfit.com
Long-term effects of a very-low-carbohydrate weight loss diet compared with an isocaloric low-fat diet after 12 mo1,2,3,4
Design: Men and women (n = 118) with abdominal obesity and at least one additional metabolic syndrome risk factor were randomly assigned to either an energy-restricted (
6–7 MJ) LC diet (4%, 35%, and 61% of energy as carbohydrate, protein, and fat, respectively) or an isocaloric LF diet (46%, 24%, and 30% of energy as carbohydrate, protein, and fat, respectively) for 1 y. Weight, body composition, and cardiometabolic risk markers were assessed.Conclusions: Under planned isoenergetic conditions, as expected, both dietary patterns resulted in similar weight loss and changes in body composition. The LC diet may offer clinical benefits to obese persons with insulin resistance. However, the increase in LDL cholesterol with the LC diet suggests that this measure should be monitored. This trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry at http://www.anzctr.org.au as ACTR 12606000203550.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/1/23
No comments:
Post a Comment