Comprehensive Understanding for Application in Korean Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus of the Consensus Statement on Carbohydrate-Restricted Diets by Korean Diabetes Association, Korean Society for the Study of Obesity, and Korean Society of Hypertension.

Carbohydrate-restricted diets and intermittent fasting (IF) have been rapidly gaining interest among the general population and patients with cardiometabolic disease, such as overweight or obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. However, there are limited expert recommendations for these dietary regimens. This study aimed to evaluate the level of scientific evidence on the benefits and harms of carbohydrate-restricted diets and IF to make responsible recommendations. A meta-analysis and systematic literature review of 66 articles on 50 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of carbohydrate-restricted diets and 10 articles on eight RCTs of IF was performed. Based on the analysis, the following recommendations are suggested. In adults with overweight or obesity, a moderately-low carbohydrate or low carbohydrate diet (mLCD) can be considered as a dietary regimen for weight reduction. In adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, mLCD can be considered as a dietary regimen for improving glycemic control and reducing body weight. In contrast, a very-low carbohydrate diet (VLCD) and IF are recommended against in patients with diabetes. Furthermore, no recommendations are suggested for VLCD and IF in adults with overweight or obesity, and carbohydrate-restricted diets and IF in patients with hypertension. Here, we describe the results of our analysis and the evidence for these recommendations.

Carbohydrate-restricted diets and intermittent fasting (IF) have been rapidly gaining interest among the general population and patients with cardiometabolic disease, such as overweight or obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. However, there are limited expert recommendations for these dietary regimens. This study aimed to evaluate the level of scientific evidence on the benefits and harms of carbohydrate-restricted diets and IF to make responsible recommendations. A meta-analysis and systematic literature review of 66 articles on 50 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of carbohydrate-restricted diets and 10 articles on eight RCTs of IF was performed. Based on the analysis, the following recommendations are suggested. In adults with overweight or obesity, a moderately-low carbohydrate or low carbohydrate diet (mLCD) can be considered as a dietary regimen for weight reduction. In adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, mLCD can be considered as a dietary regimen for improving glycemic control and reducing body weight. In contrast, a very-low carbohydrate diet (VLCD) and IF are recommended against in patients with diabetes. Furthermore, no recommendations are suggested for VLCD and IF in adults with overweight or obesity, and carbohydrate-restricted diets and IF in patients with hypertension. Here, we describe the results of our analysis and the evidence for these recommendations.

BackgroundCarbohydrate-restricted diets and intermittent fasting (IF) have been rapidly gaining interest among the general population and patients with cardiometabolic disease, such as overweight or obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. However, there are limited expert recommendations for these dietary regimens. This study aimed to evaluate the level of scientific evidence on the benefits and harms of carbohydrate-restricted diets and IF to make responsible recommendations.MethodsA meta-analysis and systematic literature review of 66 articles on 50 randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of carbohydrate-restricted diets and ten articles on eight RCTs of IF was performed.ResultsBased on the analysis, the following recommendations are suggested. In adults with overweight or obesity, a moderately-low carbohydrate or low carbohydrate diet (mLCD) can be considered as a dietary regimen for weight reduction. In adults with type 2 diabetes, mLCD can be considered as a dietary regimen for improving glycemic control and reducing body weight. In contrast, a very-low carbohydrate diet (VLCD) and IF are recommended against in patients with diabetes. Furthermore, no recommendations are suggested for VLCD and IF in adults with overweight or obesity, and carbohydrate-restricted diets and IF in patients with hypertension.ConclusionHere, we describe the results of our analysis and the evidence for these recommendations.

Carbohydrate-restricted diets are one of the most effective dietary interventions for weight loss. However, the optimum carbohydrate intake for implementing the most effective weight-loss interventions is still being discussed. We aimed to determine the optimum carbohydrate intake for short- and long-term weight loss in adults with overweight and obesity. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL from inception to May 2021 for randomized controlled trials examining the effect of a carbohydrate-restricted diet (≤45% of energy intake) as compared to a control diet (carbohydrate intake >45% of energy intake) on body weight in adults with overweight/obesity. A random-effects dose-response meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the mean difference for each 10% decrease in carbohydrate intake at the 6-month follow-up (1 to 6 months), 12-month follow-up (6 to 12 months), and follow-up longer than 12 months. The shape of the dose-dependent effects was also evaluated. The certainty of the evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold was defined as 5% weight loss (equal to 4.39 kg). A total of 110 trials were selected for the present meta-analysis. In the linear dose-response meta-analysis, each 10% decrease in carbohydrate intake reduced body weight by 0.64 kg (95% CI: -0.79 to -0.49; n = 101 trials with 4,135 participants, high-certainty evidence) at the 6-month follow-up and by 1.15 kg (95% CI: -1.61 to -0.69; 42 trials with 2,657 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) at the 12-month follow-up. Non-linear dose-response meta-analyses indicated a monotonic reduction in body weight with the decrease in carbohydrate intake, with the greatest reduction at 5% at the 6-month follow-up (mean difference 5%: -3.96 kg, 95% CI: -4.92 to -3.00) and 10% at the 12-month follow-up (mean difference 10%: -6.26 kg, 95% CI: -10.42 to -2.10). At follow-up longer than 12 months, dose-response analyses suggested a non-linear effect, wherein carbohydrate intakes higher than 40% and lower than 30% were not effective for weight loss. Carbohydrate restriction is an effective dietary strategy for important weight loss in adults with overweight and obesity. At 6-month and 12-month follow-ups, body weight decreased proportionally, more than the MCID threshold, along with the decrease in carbohydrate intake. At follow-up longer than 12 months, there was a non-linear effect, with the greatest reduction at 30% carbohydrate intake. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022315042.

Beyond diet and exercise: another option for patients with obesity and polycystic ovary syndrome?

Sugar-Sweetened Beverage and 100% Fruit Juice Consumption on Body Weight in Children and Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials

Concerns have been raised that frequent consumption of 100% fruit juice may promote weight gain. Current evidence on fruit juice and weight gain has yielded mixed findings from both observational studies and clinical trials. To synthesize the available evidence on 100% fruit juice consumption and body weight in children and adults. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched through May 18, 2023. Prospective cohort studies of at least 6 months and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of at least 2 weeks assessing the association of 100% fruit juice with body weight change in children and adults were included. In the trials, fruit juices were compared with noncaloric controls. Data were pooled using random-effects models and presented as β coefficients with 95% CIs for cohort studies and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for RCTs. Change in body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) was assessed in children and change in body weight in adults. A total of 42 eligible studies were included in this analysis, including 17 among children (17 cohorts; 0 RCTs; 45 851 children; median [IQR] age, 8 [1-15] years) and 25 among adults (6 cohorts; 19 RCTs; 268 095 adults; median [IQR] age among cohort studies, 48 [41-61] years; median [IQR] age among RCTs, 42 [25-59]). Among cohort studies in children, each additional serving per day of 100% fruit juice was associated with a 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01-0.05) higher BMI change. Among cohort studies in adults, studies that did not adjust for energy showed greater body weight gain (0.21 kg; 95% CI, 0.15-0.27 kg) than studies that did adjust for energy intake (-0.08 kg; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.05 kg; P for meta-regression <.001). RCTs in adults found no significant association of assignment to 100% fruit juice with body weight but the CI was wide (MD, -0.53 kg; 95% CI, -1.55 to 0.48 kg). Based on the available evidence from prospective cohort studies, in this systematic review and meta-analysis, 1 serving per day of 100% fruit juice was associated with BMI gain among children. Findings in adults found a significant association among studies unadjusted for total energy, suggesting potential mediation by calories. Further trials of 100% fruit juice and body weight are desirable. Our findings support guidance to limit consumption of fruit juice to prevent intake of excess calories and weight gain.

The effects of a carbohydrate-restricted diet on weight loss and risk factors for atherosclerosis have been incompletely assessed. We randomly assigned 132 severely obese subjects (including 77 blacks and 23 women) with a mean body-mass index of 43 and a high prevalence of diabetes (39 percent) or the metabolic syndrome (43 percent) to a carbohydrate-restricted (low-carbohydrate) diet or a calorie- and fat-restricted (low-fat) diet. Seventy-nine subjects completed the six-month study. An analysis including all subjects, with the last observation carried forward for those who dropped out, showed that subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet (mean [+/-SD], -5.8+/-8.6 kg vs. -1.9+/-4.2 kg; P=0.002) and had greater decreases in triglyceride levels (mean, -20+/-43 percent vs. -4+/-31 percent; P=0.001), irrespective of the use or nonuse of hypoglycemic or lipid-lowering medications. Insulin sensitivity, measured only in subjects without diabetes, also improved more among subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet (6+/-9 percent vs. -3+/-8 percent, P=0.01). The amount of weight lost (P<0.001) and assignment to the low-carbohydrate diet (P=0.01) were independent predictors of improvement in triglyceride levels and insulin sensitivity. Severely obese subjects with a high prevalence of diabetes or the metabolic syndrome lost more weight during six months on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fat-restricted diet, with a relative improvement in insulin sensitivity and triglyceride levels, even after adjustment for the amount of weight lost. This finding should be interpreted with caution, given the small magnitude of overall and between-group differences in weight loss in these markedly obese subjects and the short duration of the study. Future studies evaluating long-term cardiovascular outcomes are needed before a carbohydrate-restricted diet can be endorsed.

Traditional weight loss and dukan diets as to nutritional and laboratory results

A 5-year-old boy with known type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), treated with insulin, presents to the paediatric diabetes outpatient department for his routine clinic review. The family have started the...

Objective To investigate the relation between total fat intake and body weight in adults and children.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies.Data sources Medline, Embase,...

some experts have suggested out that low carbohydrate diets (LCD) are more effective for weight loss and glycemic control. However, long term results are controversial. to review and analyze randomized control studies that evaluate the effect of LCD on weight and metabolic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes for a period equal to or greater than 10 months. a systematic review was conducted on randomized trials registered in PubMed, EBSCOhost and Scielo to May 15th 2015, published in English and Spanish, with the following search data: "diabetes mellitus" AND "carbohydrate restricted diet" OR "restricted carbohydrate diet" OR "low carbohydrate diet" AND "weight loss". four studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 444 participants between 18-70yo. Follow-up time ranged between 10 to 24 months. Three out of the four studies reported weight reduction with LCD. However, when LCD were compared with other diets no significant differences in weight loss or A1C levels were observed. this review showed that three of four studies on the LCD were effective for weight loss over a period of 10 to 24 months. However, there was no evidence showing better results than those observed with other diets. Nor, difference in A1C.

All major guidelines on antihypertensive therapy recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be able to help in this respect. To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events). To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure, change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure, and body weight reduction. We obtained studies using computerised searches of the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the clinical trials registry ClinicalTrials.gov, and from handsearches in reference lists and systematic reviews (status as of 13 April 2015). Randomised controlled trials in hypertensive adults of at least 24 weeks' duration that compared long-term pharmacologic interventions for weight loss with placebo. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using fixed-effect meta-analysis. When heterogeneity was present, we used the random-effects method and investigated the cause of heterogeneity. After updating the literature search, which was extended to include four new weight-reducing drugs, we identified one additional study of phentermine/topiramate, bringing the total number of studies to nine that compare orlistat, sibutramine, or phentermine/topiramate to placebo and thus fulfil our inclusion criteria. We identified no relevant studies investigating rimonabant, liraglutide, lorcaserin, or naltrexone/bupropion. No study included mortality and cardiovascular morbidity as predefined outcomes. Incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher in those participants treated with orlistat versus those treated with placebo. The most frequent side effects were dry mouth, constipation, and headache with sibutramine, and dry mouth and paresthaesia with phentermine/topiramate. In participants assigned to orlistat, sibutramine, or phentermine/topiramate body weight was reduced more effectively than in participants in the usual-care/placebo groups. Orlistat reduced systolic blood pressure as compared to placebo by -2.5 mm Hg (mean difference (MD); 95% confidence interval (CI): -4.0 to -0.9 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure by -1.9 mm Hg (MD; 95% CI: -3.0 to -0.9 mm Hg). Sibutramine increased diastolic blood pressure compared to placebo by +3.2 mm Hg (MD; 95% CI: +1.4 to +4.9 mm Hg). The one trial that investigated phentermine/topiramate suggested it lowered blood pressure. In people with elevated blood pressure, orlistat and sibutramine reduced body weight to a similar degree, while phentermine/topiramate reduced body weight to a greater extent. In the same trials, orlistat and phentermine/topiramate reduced blood pressure, while sibutramine increased it. We could include no trials investigating rimonabant, liraglutide, lorcaserin, or naltrexone/bupropion in people with elevated blood pressure. Long-term trials assessing the effect of orlistat, liraglutide, lorcaserin, phentermine/topiramate, or naltrexone/bupropion on mortality and morbidity are unavailable and needed. Rimonabant and sibutramine have been withdrawn from the market, after long-term trials on mortality and morbidity have confirmed concerns about the potential severe side effects of these two drugs. The European Medicines Agency refused marketing authorisation for phentermine/topiramate due to safety concerns, while the application for European marketing authorisation for lorcaserin was withdrawn by the manufacturer after the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use judged the overall benefit/risk balance to be negative.

This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be able to help in this respect. Primary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events).. Secondary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and on body weight reduction. For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The searches had no language restrictions. We contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work. Randomised controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration in adults with hypertension that compared approved long-term weight-loss medications to placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. When heterogeneity was present, we used the random-effects method and investigated the cause of the heterogeneity. This third update of the review added one new trial, investigating the combination of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo. Two medications, which were included in the previous versions of this review (rimonabant and sibutramine) are no longer considered relevant for this update, since their marketing approval was withdrawn in 2010 and 2009, respectively. The number of included studies in this review update is therefore six (12,724 participants in total): four RCTs comparing orlistat to placebo, involving a total of 3132 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 46 to 55 years; one trial comparing phentermine/topiramate to placebo, involving 1305 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 53 years; and one trial comparing naltrexone/bupropion to placebo, involving 8283 participants with hypertension and a mean age of 62 years. We judged the risks of bias to be unclear for the trials investigating orlistat or naltrexone/bupropion. and low for the trial investigating phentermine/topiramate. Only the study of naltrexone/bupropion included cardiovascular mortality and morbidity as predefined outcomes. There were no differences in the rates of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo. The incidence of overall adverse events was significantly higher in participants treated with naltrexone/bupropion. For orlistat, the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher compared to placebo. The most frequent side effects with phentermine/topiramate were dry mouth and paraesthesia. After six to 12 months, orlistat reduced systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by mean difference (MD) -2.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.8 to -1.4 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants) and diastolic blood pressure by MD -2.0 mm Hg (95% CI -2.7 to -1.2 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants). After 13 months of follow-up, phentermine/topiramate decreased systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by -2.0 to -4.2 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage), and diastolic blood pressure by -1.3 to -1.9 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage). There was no difference in the change in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo (1 trial, 8283 participants). We identified no relevant studies investigating liraglutide or lorcaserin in people with hypertension. In people with elevated blood pressure, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate and naltrexone/bupropion reduced body weight; the magnitude of the effect was greatest with phentermine/topiramate. In the same trials, orlistat and phentermine/topiramate, but not naltrexone/bupropion, reduced blood pressure. One RCT of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo showed no differences in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality or morbidity after two years. The European Medicines Agency refused marketing authorisation for phentermine/topiramate due to safety concerns, while for lorcaserin the application for European marketing authorisation was withdrawn due to a negative overall benefit/risk balance. In 2020 lorcaserin was also withdrawn from the US market. Two other medications (rimonabant and sibutramine) had already been withdrawn from the market in 2009 and 2010, respectively.