Are low carbohydrate diet interventions beneficial for metabolic syndrome and its components? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Qi Zheng; Xin Gao; Xiang Ruan; Siju Chen; Xingchen Pan; Ruotong Wang; Lanjian Zhao; Zhouchen Yu; Die Li; Jinxia Zhai

doi:10.1038/s41366-025-01822-5

Are low carbohydrate diet interventions beneficial for metabolic syndrome and its components? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Int J Obes (Lond). 2025 Jun 27. doi: 10.1038/s41366-025-01822-5. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Qi Zheng^#¹, Xin Gao^#¹, Xiang Ruan^#², Siju Chen¹, Xingchen Pan², Ruotong Wang³, Lanjian Zhao⁴, Zhouchen Yu¹, Die Li¹, Jinxia Zhai⁵

Affiliations

¹ Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
² School of the First Clinical Medicine, Anhui Medical University, Heifei, China.
³ School of Public Health, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui, China.
⁴ Clinical college, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
⁵ Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. jinxia.zhai@foxmail.com.

^# Contributed equally.

PMID: 40579564
DOI: 10.1038/s41366-025-01822-5

Abstract

Background: Diet plays a crucial role in metabolic syndrome (MetS) which might develop into diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease.

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the effects of low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) interventions on MetS and its components.

Methods: Four electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Medline were selected from database inception until March 2024. Randomized clinical trials in adults with MetS evaluated LCD interventions (50-130 g of carbohydrates/day or 10-40% of total dietary energy at 2000 kcal/day) and a control intervention for at least 12 weeks. Four reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane tool. Meta-analyses used a random-effects model to calculate mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and analyzed heterogeneity, sensitivity, and publication bias.

Results: A total of 41 articles satisfied the study's inclusion criteria. Thirty articles were incorporated in the meta-analysis, of which 25 were high-quality studies and 5 were of moderate quality. In total, 3806 adults were assessed. Pooled analysis of mean differences (MD) indicated that compared to the control dietary intervention, the LCD intervention reduced BMI (MD -0.43 kg/m², 95% CI -0.75, -0.11), waist circumference (MD -0.77 cm, 95% CI -1.43, -0.12), systolic blood pressure (MD -1.19 mmHg, 95% CI -2.36, -0.02), diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.49 mmHg, 95% CI -2.36, -0.02), HbA1c (MD -0.62%, 95% CI -0.91, -0.32) and triglycerides (MD -0.24 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.42, -0.05), and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD 0.06 mmol/l, 95% CI 0.03, 0.09). The subgroup analysis results indicated that the source of high heterogeneity might come from the dosage of intervention.

Conclusion: In summary, LCD interventions improved MetS-related biomarkers in adults with MetS. Moreover, further research is needed to determine the optimal intervention period of LCD on MetS.

Publication types

Review