RESUMEN
Although carbohydrate restriction is not a new approach for the management of Type 2 diabetes, interest in its safety and efficacy has increased significantly in recent years. The purpose of the current narrative review is to summarise the key relevant research and practical considerations in this area, as well as to explore some of the common concerns expressed in relation to the use of such approaches. There is a strong physiological rationale supporting the role of carbohydrate restriction for the management of Type 2 diabetes, and available evidence suggests that low carbohydrate dietary approaches (LCDs) are as effective as, or superior to, other dietary approaches for its management. Importantly, LCDs appear to be more effective than other dietary approaches for facilitating a reduction in the requirement for certain medications, which leads to their effects on other health markers being underestimated. LCDs have also been demonstrated to be an effective method for achieving remission of Type 2 diabetes for some people. The available evidence does not support concerns that LCDs increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, that such approaches increase the risk of nutrient deficiencies, or that they are more difficult to adhere to than other dietary approaches. A growing number of organisations support the use of LCDs as a suitable choice for individuals with Type 2 diabetes.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: To compare the ability of Body Mass Index (BMI), waist circumference (WC) and waist to height ratio (WHtR) to estimate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk levels in adolescents. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed after a database search for relevant literature (Cochrane, Centre for Review and Dissemination, PubMed, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, BIOSIS citation index, ChildData, metaRegister). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The study included 117 records representing 96 studies with 994,595 participants were included in the systematic review, 14 of which (13 studies, N.=14,610) were eligible for the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that BMI was a strong indicator of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and insulin; but not total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein or glucose. Few studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis considering WC or WHtR (N.≤2). The narrative synthesis found measures of central adiposity to be consistently valid indicators of the same risk factors as BMI. CONCLUSIONS: BMI was an indicator of CVD risk. WC and WHtR were efficacious for indicating the same risk factors BMI performed strongly for, though there was insufficient evidence to judge the relative strength of each measure possibly due to heterogeneity in the methods for measuring and classifying WC.
