(© ShStock - stock.adobe.com)
MELBOURNE — In recent years, low-carbohydrate diets have gained popularity as a weight loss strategy and potential treatment for Type 2 diabetes. However, a new study reveals that low-carb eating patterns are linked to a long-term increase the risk of developing the condition.
The study by Australian scientists uncovers a surprising link between low-carb diets and an increased risk of diabetes. Researchers from Monash University and RMIT University followed over 39,000 adults for nearly 14 years to investigate this relationship.
The study, published in the journal Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research and Reviews, found that people who adhered to a low-carbohydrate, high-fat, and high-protein diet had a 20% higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes compared to those who ate a more balanced diet. This finding challenges the commonly held belief that cutting carbs is universally beneficial for metabolic health.
“Eating food high in saturated fats can lead to weight gain but we know they also lead to insulin resistance which is one of the causes of Type 2 diabetes independently of weight gain,” explains Distinguished Professor Barbora de Courten in a media release.
Before you rush to restock your pantry with pasta and bread, however, it’s important to understand the nuances of this research. The relationship between low-carb diets and diabetes risk isn’t as straightforward as it might seem at first glance. The researchers also note that this is an observational study and cannot prove that low-carb diets directly cause an increased diabetes risk.
The study utilized data from the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study, which recruited participants aged 40-69 between 1990 and 1994. Researchers analyzed dietary information collected at the start of the study and tracked new cases of diabetes reported by participants over the following years.
The researchers used a scoring system called the low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) score to measure how closely participants followed a low-carb eating pattern. This score was based on the percentage of total calories coming from carbohydrates, fat, and protein. A higher score indicated a diet lower in carbs and higher in fat and protein. The study divided participants into five groups based on their LCD scores.
Interestingly, the group with the highest LCD scores (meaning they ate the fewest carbs) consumed about 37.5% of their calories from carbohydrates. In contrast, the group with the lowest LCD scores got about 55.4% of their calories from carbs. To put this in perspective, many popular low-carb diets recommend getting less than 26% of calories from carbohydrates, which is even lower than the highest LCD score group in this study.
It’s important to note that not all low-carb diets are created equal. The study found that people with higher low-carb diet scores tended to consume more saturated fat and less fiber than those with lower scores. This suggests that the quality of fat and carbohydrates in the diet may be just as important as the quantity when it comes to diabetes risk.
The study also found some differences in lifestyle factors across the low-carbohydrate diet score groups. For example, the group with the highest scores had a higher proportion of current smokers, individuals with obesity, and lower physical activity levels compared to other groups – known risk factors for Type 2 diabetes.
When the researchers accounted for body mass index (BMI) in their analysis, the relationship between LCD score and diabetes risk disappeared. This suggests that the increased risk of diabetes associated with low-carb diets may be largely explained by differences in body weight.
“For people who don’t have diabetes, a balanced diet is the best choice,” de Courten says. “We need to remember that not all carbohydrates are equal. The kind of carbs you want to avoid are refined sugars such as soft drinks, juices, white rice, white bread and replace them with unprocessed carbs rich in fiber like grains, brown rice and legumes.”
“And eat more of healthy mono- and poly-unsaturated fats such as avocados, nuts, olive oil and fatty fish like salmon.”
The researchers note several limitations of their study, including its reliance on self-reported dietary data and the fact that they only measured diet at the beginning of the study period. They caution that eating patterns may have changed over time, which could affect the results.
As with any dietary change, it’s important to consult with a healthcare provider or registered dietitian before making significant shifts in your eating habits. They can help you develop a personalized nutrition plan that takes into account your individual health needs and risk factors.
This study serves as a reminder that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to nutrition. While low-carb diets may be effective for short-term weight loss, their long-term impacts on health are still being understood. As always, a balanced diet, regular physical activity, and maintaining a healthy weight remain the cornerstones of diabetes prevention.
Note: An earlier version of this story mentioned Atkins and keto diets. While these are known low-carbohydrate diets, they were not specifically mentioned in the journal paper and are not representative of the diets followed in this study. We have removed the mentions of these specific diets from our text.
Paper Summary
Methodology
The researchers used data from the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study, which followed 39,185 adults 40-69 years of age for almost 14 years. Participants filled out food frequency questionnaires at the start of the study, which were used to calculate their LCD scores. The researchers then tracked who developed Type 2 diabetes over the follow-up period.
Key Results
People in the highest LCD score group (eating the fewest carbs) had a 20% higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes compared to those in the lowest LCD score group. However, this increased risk disappeared when the researchers accounted for BMI, suggesting that body weight plays a crucial role in this relationship.
Study Limitations
The study relied on self-reported dietary information, which can be inaccurate. Additionally, diabetes cases were self-reported, although most were validated by doctors. The study also couldn’t distinguish between different types of carbohydrates (like whole grains vs. refined grains) or between plant and animal sources of protein and fat.
Discussion & Takeaways
This study highlights the complexity of nutrition research and the importance of considering overall dietary patterns rather than single nutrients. While low-carb diets may lead to short-term weight loss, their long-term effects on health may be less beneficial. The findings suggest that the quality of fats and proteins consumed in place of carbohydrates, as well as overall calorie balance and body weight, are crucial factors in determining diabetes risk.
Funding & Disclosures
The Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study was funded by VicHealth, Cancer Council Victoria, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
I spent nearly 2 years now attempting to track everything I ate for my own personal research – tracking accurately is HARD!
Did you ever fill out ‘food frequency questionnaires’? Once a year? I did for a number of years for a national study. Their questions were awful and seemed to presuppose a type of diet that didn’t account for people on a low carb diet. The implicit bias in the questionaire was ‘fat is bad’.
I’m sorry to say but any attempt to draw conclusions from this kind of data is just noise.
There isn’t any good science here. The researchers played with bad data, drew bad conclusions, and really didn’t contribute anything except yet another worthless nutrition research paper to add to the already huge pile of them.
Putting my fortuneteller hat on – I bet the conclusions drawn match her own personal biases!
Same data in the hands of a low carb dieter and the conclusions might be different.
Nonsense. I got cured this way 16 years ago. Still cured.
I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes with a blood glucose of 306 and A1C of 11.6. After 10 months on a low carb diet I have normal blood glucose and A1C of 5.4. I did take medication for awhile but after about 6 months got off the meds. I am 72. This study is somewhat suspect in my mind.
Problem is that most people will not read the comments that show this is a bogus study. So, the sugar industry wins again. This article was linked on Drudge Report so it will get thousands of hits. As an MD it is really frustrating to see this misinformation spread.
Keto has helped me in so many ways including losing weight and lowering my blood sugar. This is nonsense.
The “lowest carbohydrate” group in this study consumed 37% of their calories as carbohydrates. What a joke. Clearly the people who conducted this study have no idea what a low-carbohydrate diet actually is. This study is not in any way a commentary on keto or similar diets.