Background: The metabolic syndrome is characterized by an atherogenic dyslipidemia identifiable using lipoprotein subclass analysis. This study assesses the effect of a carbohydrate-restricted diet on the dyslipidemia of the metabolic syndrome in a clinical setting. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of patients attending a preventive medicine clinic using lipoprotein subclass analysis (by NMR spectroscopy) to identify the atherogenic dyslipidemia. If present, patients were counseled to begin a carbohydrate-restricted diet (< 20 g/day). Patients already on statin therapy were included only if the medication dose was not changed. The outcomes were changes in body weight, fasting serum lipid profiles and serum lipoprotein subclasses. Results: Of 122 patients identified, 80 patients had complete pre- and post-treatment data. The mean (+/-SD) age was 66 +/- 9 years, baseline weight was 85 +/- 12 kg, BMI was 28.1 +/- 3.6, 73% were male, 99% were Caucasian. Sixty-five percent were taking statin medication. Carbohydrate-restriction led to a 13% reduction in total cholesterol, 16% reduction in LDL cholesterol, 38% reduction in triglycerides, and a 13% increase in HDL cholesterol (all p values < 0.001). Carbohydrate-restriction also led to a reduction in LDL particle concentration of 28%, a reduction in small LDL of 82%, a reduction of large VLDL of 62%, and an increase in large HDL of 30% (all p values < 0.001). Conclusions: A carbohydrate-restricted diet recommendation led to improvements in lipid profiles and lipoprotein subclass traits of the metabolic syndrome in a clinical outpatient setting, and should be considered as a treatment for the metabolic syndrome.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: A low fat, high carbohydrate diet in combination with regular exercise is the traditional recommendation for treating diabetes. Compliance with these lifestyle modifications is less than satisfactory, however, and a high carbohydrate diet raises postprandial plasma glucose and insulin secretion, thereby increasing risk of CVD, hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity and diabetes. Moreover, the current epidemic of diabetes and obesity has been, over the past three decades, accompanied by a significant decrease in fat consumption and an increase in carbohydrate consumption. This apparent failure of the traditional diet, from a public health point of view, indicates that alternative dietary approaches are needed. Because carbohydrate is the major secretagogue of insulin, some form of carbohydrate restriction is a prima facie candidate for dietary control of diabetes. Evidence from various randomized controlled trials in recent years has convinced us that such diets are safe and effective, at least in short-term. These data show low carbohydrate diets to be comparable or better than traditional low fat high carbohydrate diets for weight reduction, improvement in the dyslipidemia of diabetes and metabolic syndrome as well as control of blood pressure, postprandial glycemia and insulin secretion. Furthermore, the ability of low carbohydrate diets to reduce triglycerides and to increase HDL is of particular importance. Resistance to such strategies has been due, in part, to equating it with the popular Atkins diet. However, there are many variations and room for individual physician planning. Some form of low carbohydrate diet, in combination with exercise, is a viable option for patients with diabetes. However, the extreme reduction of carbohydrate of popular diets (<30 g/day) cannot be recommended for a diabetic population at this time without further study. On the other hand, the dire objections continually raised in the literature appear to have very little scientific basis. Whereas it is traditional to say that more work needs to be done, the same is true of the assumed standard low fat diets which have an ambiguous record at best. We see current trends in the national dietary recommendations as a positive sign and an appropriate move in the right direction.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.