Based on the evidence review ed , low-CHO and very-low-CHO diets are not superior to other dietary approaches for weight loss .
These diets may have advantages related to appetite control , triglyceride reduction , and reduction in the use of medication in T2D management .
The evidence review ed showed mixed effects on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with some studies showing an increase .
There was no clear evidence for advantages regarding effects on other cardiometabolic risk markers .
Historically , low-carbohydrate ( CHO ) and very-low-CHO diets have been used for weight loss .
Recently , these diets have been promoted for type 2 diabetes ( T2D ) management .
This scientific statement provides a comprehensive review of the current evidence base available from recent systematic review s and meta-analyses on the effects of low-CHO and very-low-CHO diets on body weight , lipoprotein lipids , glycemic control , and other cardiometabolic risk factors .
Comparative effects of very low-carbohydrate, high-fat and high-carbohydrate, low-fat weight-loss diets on bowel habit and faecal short-chain fatty acids and bacterial populations.
Very low-carbohydrate diets are often used to promote weight loss , but their effects on bowel health and function are largely unknown . We compared the effects of a very low-carbohydrate , high-fat ( LC ) diet with a high-carbohydrate , high-fibre , low-fat ( HC ) diet on indices of bowel health and function . In a parallel study design , ninety-one overweight and obese participants ( age 50.6 ( sd 7.5 ) years ; BMI 33.7 ( sd 4.2 ) kg/m(2 ) ) were r and omly assigned to either an energy-restricted ( about 6 - 7 MJ , 30 % deficit ) planned isoenergetic LC or HC diet for 8 weeks . At baseline and week 8 , 24 h urine and faecal collection s were obtained and a bowel function question naire was completed . Compared with the HC group , there were significant reductions in the LC group for faecal output ( 21 ( sd 145 ) v. - 61 ( sd 147 ) g ) , defecation frequency , faecal excretion and concentrations of butyrate ( - 0.5 ( sd 10.4 ) v. - 3.9 ( sd 9.7 ) mmol/l ) and total SCFA ( 1.4 ( sd 40.5 ) v. - 15.8 ( sd 43.6 ) mmol/l ) and counts of bifidobacteria ( P < 0.05 time x diet interaction , for all ) . Urinary phenols and p-cresol excretion decreased ( P < or = 0.003 for time ) with no difference between diets ( P > or = 0.25 ) . Faecal form , pH , ammonia concentration and numbers of coliforms and Escherichia coli did not change with either diet . No differences between the diets were evident for incidences of adverse gastrointestinal symptoms , which suggests that both diets were well tolerated . Under energy-restricted conditions , a short-term LC diet lowered stool weight and had detrimental effects on the concentration and excretion of faecal SCFA compared with an HC diet . This suggests that the long-term consumption of an LC diet may increase the risk of development of gastrointestinal disorders
Based on the evidence review ed , low-CHO and very-low-CHO diets are not superior to other dietary approaches for weight loss .
These diets may have advantages related to appetite control , triglyceride reduction , and reduction in the use of medication in T2D management .
The evidence review ed showed mixed effects on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with some studies showing an increase .
There was no clear evidence for advantages regarding effects on other cardiometabolic risk markers .
Historically , low-carbohydrate ( CHO ) and very-low-CHO diets have been used for weight loss .
Recently , these diets have been promoted for type 2 diabetes ( T2D ) management .
This scientific statement provides a comprehensive review of the current evidence base available from recent systematic review s and meta-analyses on the effects of low-CHO and very-low-CHO diets on body weight , lipoprotein lipids , glycemic control , and other cardiometabolic risk factors .