OBJECTIVE: Obesity plays a relevant pathophysiological role in the development of health problems, arising as result of complex interaction of genetic, nutritional and metabolic factors. We conducted a dietary intervention case-control randomized trial, to compare the effectiveness on body composition of two nutritional protocols: a very-low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet (VLCKD), integrated by an aminoacid supplement with whey protein, and very low restricted-calorie diet (VLCD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical study was conducted with a randomized case-control in which twenty-five healthy subjects gave informed consent to participate in the interventional study and were evaluated for their health and nutritional status, by anthropometric, and body composition evaluation. RESULTS: The results of this pilot study show that a diet low in carbohydrates, associated with a decreased caloric intake, is effective in weight loss. After VLCKD, versus VLCD, no significant differences in body lean of the trunk, body lean distribution (android and gynoid), total body lean were observed (p > 0.05). After VLCKD, no increasing of sarcopenia frequency, according ASSMI, was observed. DISCUSSION: Many studies have shown the effectiveness of the ketogenic diet on weight loss; even if not know how to work effectively, as some researchers believe that the weight loss is due to reduced calorie intake, satiety could also be induced by the effect of the proteins, rather than the low-carbohydrates. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study showed that a VLCKD was highly effective in terms of body weight reduction without to induce lean body mass loss, preventing the risk of sarcopenia. Further clinical trials are needed on a larger population and long-term body weight maintenance and risk factors management effects of VLCKD. There is no doubt, however, that a proper dietary approach would impact significantly on the reduction of public expenditure costs, in view of prospective data on increasing the percentage of obese people in our nation.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Obesity plays a relevant pathophysiological role in the development of health problems, arising as result of complex interaction of genetic, nutritional and metabolic factors. We conducted a dietary intervention case-control randomized trial, to compare the effectiveness on body composition of two nutritional protocols: a very-low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet (VLCKD), integrated by an aminoacid supplement with whey protein, and very low restricted-calorie diet (VLCD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical study was conducted with a randomized case-control in which twenty-five healthy subjects gave informed consent to participate in the interventional study and were evaluated for their health and nutritional status, by anthropometric, and body composition evaluation. RESULTS: The results of this pilot study show that a diet low in carbohydrates, associated with a decreased caloric intake, is effective in weight loss. After VLCKD, versus VLCD, no significant differences in body lean of the trunk, body lean distribution (android and gynoid), total body lean were observed (p > 0.05). After VLCKD, no increasing of sarcopenia frequency, according ASSMI, was observed. DISCUSSION: Many studies have shown the effectiveness of the ketogenic diet on weight loss; even if not know how to work effectively, as some researchers believe that the weight loss is due to reduced calorie intake, satiety could also be induced by the effect of the proteins, rather than the low-carbohydrates. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study showed that a VLCKD was highly effective in terms of body weight reduction without to induce lean body mass loss, preventing the risk of sarcopenia. Further clinical trials are needed on a larger population and long-term body weight maintenance and risk factors management effects of VLCKD. There is no doubt, however, that a proper dietary approach would impact significantly on the reduction of public expenditure costs, in view of prospective data on increasing the percentage of obese people in our nation.
Authors: M Caprio; M Infante; E Moriconi; A Armani; A Fabbri; G Mantovani; S Mariani; C Lubrano; E Poggiogalle; S Migliaccio; L M Donini; S Basciani; A Cignarelli; E Conte; G Ceccarini; F Bogazzi; L Cimino; R A Condorelli; S La Vignera; A E Calogero; A Gambineri; L Vignozzi; F Prodam; G Aimaretti; G Linsalata; S Buralli; F Monzani; A Aversa; R Vettor; F Santini; P Vitti; L Gnessi; U Pagotto; F Giorgino; A Colao; A Lenzi Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Elvira Rostanzo; Marco Marchetti; Ilenia Casini; Anna Maria Aloisi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-04 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: David Ma; Amy C Wang; Ishita Parikh; Stefan J Green; Jared D Hoffman; George Chlipala; M Paul Murphy; Brent S Sokola; Björn Bauer; Anika M S Hartz; Ai-Ling Lin Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Antonino De Lorenzo; Santo Gratteri; Paola Gualtieri; Andrea Cammarano; Pierfrancesco Bertucci; Laura Di Renzo Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Ignacio Sajoux; Paula M Lorenzo; Diego Gomez-Arbelaez; M Angeles Zulet; Itziar Abete; Ana I Castro; Javier Baltar; María P Portillo; Francisco J Tinahones; J Alfredo Martinez; Ana B Crujeiras; Felipe F Casanueva Journal: Nutrients Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 5.717