Examine publishes rigorous, unbiased analysis of the latest and most important nutrition and supplementation studies each month, available to all Examine Members. Click here to learn more or log in.
Study under review: Efficacy and safety of very low calorie ketogenic diet (VLCKD) in patients with overweight and obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Introduction
Despite significant advances in the understanding of obesity and the mechanisms behind it, current interventions are not very successful in the long term. As most of the common obesity-associated diseases arise from excess energy intake relative to energy needs, very low calorie diets (VLCD) characterized by less than 800 kcal per day have shown to promote rapid weight loss and substantially improve[1] conditions like type 2 diabetes. Although they are intended to be used for only a short period of time, the beneficial effects of following a VLCD are difficult to maintain in the long term, and can be hard to implement in the real world due to the very restrictive nature of the diet.
An alternative to the traditional VLCD involves the use of an initial phase of ketogenic dieting (VLCKD) in which people follow a VLCD, but also restrict the intake of carbohydrates to less than 30 to 50 grams per day. Afterward, both calories and carbohydrates are gradually increased, as outlined in Figure 1. It has been suggested[2] that the ketogenic dieting phase aids in compliance with the diet due to the appetite suppressant effects of ketone bodies, by promoting weight and fat loss, and the sparing[3] of lean mass.

The term “ketogenic diet” is widely used in the literature to refer to diets that promote ketosis. However, these diets can vary in their calorie restriction and the percentage of dietary fat and protein they contain. Thus, the authors of the study under review attempted to determine the effects of specifically VLCKD (carbohydrate restricted, ketone-inducing VLCD) on bodyweight and related clinical parameters, as well as its safety.
Very low calorie diets (VLCD) can cause weight loss and improve metabolic health in people with obesity. However, they can be difficult to implement and adhere to. An alternative to traditional VLCD is using an initial ketogenic phase in which carbohydrates are also restricted in order to control hunger and adherence to the diet (VLCKD). As the term “ketogenic diet” is used in the literature for ketogenic diets with different amounts of calories and percentages of dietary fat and protein, the authors wanted to determine the effects of specifically VLCKD (carbohydrate restricted VLCD) on weight loss and related clinical parameters.
What was studied?
What were the findings?
The bigger picture
Frequently asked questions
What should I know?
Other Articles in Issue #63 (January 2020)
-
Can lavender take the edge off anxiety?
Lavender seems to reduce non-clinical anxiety a bit according to this meta-analysis, but the evidence isn't all that strong.
-
Does the menstrual cycle affect caffeine’s performance-enhancing properties?
There's reason to suspect that caffeine's aerobic-boosting effects could vary depending on menstrual cycle phase. This is the first trial to directly explore the issue by comparing caffeine's effects during three different menstrual cycle phases.
-
Interview: Eric Russell Helms and Gary John Slater
In this info-packed interview, we pick the brain of two fitness researchers who recently wrote a comprehensive review examining the optimal energy surplus needed for hypertrophy.
-
Women and men appear to benefit equally from the ergogenic effects of coffee
There are some reasons to suspect that your sex can influence coffee's ergogenic effects. But whether this pans out in actual performance isn’t clear.
-
Mini: What’s soy good for?
Soy’s been examined for a lot of health outcomes. But what outcomes does the evidence best support?
-
Does some cinnamon each day keep the cardiologist away?
A bit of this spice can keep blood pressure nice… but not as nice as exercise or pharmaceuticals can.
-
B vitamins on the brain: Do they improve mental health?
This meta-analysis found a small impact on stress in people without clinical mental health issues, but it also may have asked too broad of a question.