Diego Gomez-Arbelaez1, Diego Bellido2, Ana I Castro1,3, Lucia Ordoñez-Mayan1, Jose Carreira4, Cristobal Galban5, Miguel A Martinez-Olmos1,3, Ana B Crujeiras1,3, Ignacio Sajoux6, Felipe F Casanueva1,3. 1. Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, and. 2. Division of Endocrinology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Ferrol and Coruña University, 15405 Ferrol, Spain. 3. Centro de Investigacion Biomedica en Red de Fisiopatologia de la Obesidad y Nutricion (CIBERobn), Instituto Salud Carlos III, 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 4. Family Medicine, Sanitary Area of Ferrol, 15405 Ferrol, Spain. 5. Intensive Care Division, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago, 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 6. Medical Department PronoKal Group, 08009 Barcelona, Spain; and.
Abstract
Context: Common concerns when using low-calorie diets as a treatment for obesity are the reduction in fat-free mass, mostly muscular mass, that occurs together with the fat mass (FM) loss, and determining the best methodologies to evaluate body composition changes. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the very-low-calorie ketogenic (VLCK) diet-induced changes in body composition of obese patients and to compare 3 different methodologies used to evaluate those changes. Design: Twenty obese patients followed a VLCK diet for 4 months. Body composition assessment was performed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), multifrequency bioelectrical impedance (MF-BIA), and air displacement plethysmography (ADP) techniques. Muscular strength was also assessed. Measurements were performed at 4 points matched with the ketotic phases (basal, maximum ketosis, ketosis declining, and out of ketosis). Results: After 4 months the VLCK diet induced a -20.2 ± 4.5 kg weight loss, at expenses of reductions in fat mass (FM) of -16.5 ± 5.1 kg (DXA), -18.2 ± 5.8 kg (MF-BIA), and -17.7 ± 9.9 kg (ADP). A substantial decrease was also observed in the visceral FM. The mild but marked reduction in fat-free mass occurred at maximum ketosis, primarily as a result of changes in total body water, and was recovered thereafter. No changes in muscle strength were observed. A strong correlation was evidenced between the 3 methods of assessing body composition. Conclusion: The VLCK diet-induced weight loss was mainly at the expense of FM and visceral mass; muscle mass and strength were preserved. Of the 3 body composition techniques used, the MF-BIA method seems more convenient in the clinical setting.
Context: Common concerns when using low-calorie diets as a treatment for obesity are the reduction in fat-free mass, mostly muscular mass, that occurs together with the fat mass (FM) loss, and determining the best methodologies to evaluate body composition changes. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the very-low-calorie ketogenic (VLCK) diet-induced changes in body composition of obesepatients and to compare 3 different methodologies used to evaluate those changes. Design: Twenty obesepatients followed a VLCK diet for 4 months. Body composition assessment was performed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), multifrequency bioelectrical impedance (MF-BIA), and air displacement plethysmography (ADP) techniques. Muscular strength was also assessed. Measurements were performed at 4 points matched with the ketotic phases (basal, maximum ketosis, ketosis declining, and out of ketosis). Results: After 4 months the VLCK diet induced a -20.2 ± 4.5 kg weight loss, at expenses of reductions in fat mass (FM) of -16.5 ± 5.1 kg (DXA), -18.2 ± 5.8 kg (MF-BIA), and -17.7 ± 9.9 kg (ADP). A substantial decrease was also observed in the visceral FM. The mild but marked reduction in fat-free mass occurred at maximum ketosis, primarily as a result of changes in total body water, and was recovered thereafter. No changes in muscle strength were observed. A strong correlation was evidenced between the 3 methods of assessing body composition. Conclusion: The VLCK diet-induced weight loss was mainly at the expense of FM and visceral mass; muscle mass and strength were preserved. Of the 3 body composition techniques used, the MF-BIA method seems more convenient in the clinical setting.
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: A B Crujeiras; D Gomez-Arbelaez; M A Zulet; M C Carreira; I Sajoux; D de Luis; A I Castro; J Baltar; I Baamonde; A Sueiro; M Macias-Gonzalez; D Bellido; F J Tinahones; J A Martinez; F F Casanueva Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Jonathan Sivakumar; Lynn Chong; Salena Ward; Tom R Sutherland; Matthew Read; Michael W Hii Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Y Bozkuş; U Mousa; C C Demir; C Anil; A Kut; O Turhan Iyidir; N Gulsoy Kirnap; S Fırat; A Nar; N B Tutuncu Journal: Acta Endocrinol (Buchar) Date: 2019 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 0.877
Authors: Caroline W Cohen; Kevin R Fontaine; Rebecca C Arend; Ronald D Alvarez; Charles A Leath; Warner K Huh; Kerri S Bevis; Kenneth H Kim; John M Straughn; Barbara A Gower Journal: J Nutr Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Andrea G Izquierdo; Marcos C Carreira; Gemma Rodriguez-Carnero; Alfredo Fernandez-Quintela; Aurelio M Sueiro; Miguel A Martinez-Olmos; German Guzman; Daniel De Luis; Marcela A S Pinhel; Carolina F Nicoletti; Carla B Nonino; Francisco J Ortega; Maria P Portillo; Jose M Fernandez-Real; Felipe F Casanueva; Ana B Crujeiras Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Guillermo Escalante; Scott W Stevenson; Christopher Barakat; Alan A Aragon; Brad J Schoenfeld Journal: BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil Date: 2021-06-13