Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Dec;3(12):968-79.
doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00367-8. Epub 2015 Oct 30.

Effect of low-fat diet interventions versus other diet interventions on long-term weight change in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Review

Effect of low-fat diet interventions versus other diet interventions on long-term weight change in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Deirdre K Tobias et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015 Dec.

Abstract

Background: The effectiveness of low-fat diets for long-term weight loss has been debated for decades, with many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and recent reviews giving mixed results. We aimed to summarise the large body of evidence from RCTs to determine whether low-fat diets contribute to greater weight loss than participants' usual diet, low-carbohydrate diets, and other higher-fat dietary interventions.

Methods: We did a systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the long-term effect (≥1 year) of low-fat and higher-fat dietary interventions on weight loss by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify eligible trials published from database inception up until July 31, 2014. We excluded trials if one intervention group included a non-dietary weight loss component but the other did not, and trials of dietary supplements or meal replacement drink interventions. Data including the main outcome measure of mean difference in weight change between interventions, and whether interventions were intended to lead to weight loss, weight maintenance, or neither, were extracted from published reports. We estimated the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) with a DerSimonian and Laird random effects method.

Findings: 3517 citations were identified by the search and 53 studies met our inclusion criteria, including 68 128 participants (69 comparisons). In weight loss trials, low-carbohydrate interventions led to significantly greater weight loss than did low-fat interventions (18 comparisons; WMD 1·15 kg [95% CI 0·52 to 1·79]; I(2)=10%). Low-fat interventions did not lead to differences in weight change compared with other higher-fat weight loss interventions (19 comparisons; WMD 0·36 kg [-0·66 to 1·37; I(2)=82%), and led to a greater weight decrease only when compared with a usual diet (eight comparisons; -5·41 kg [-7·29 to -3·54]; I(2)=68%). Similarly, results of non-weight-loss trials and weight maintenance trials, for which no low-carbohydrate comparisons were made, showed that low-fat versus higher-fat interventions have a similar effect on weight loss, and that low-fat interventions led to greater weight loss only when compared with usual diet. In weight loss trials, higher-fat weight loss interventions led to significantly greater weight loss than low-fat interventions when groups differed by more than 5% of calories obtained from fat at follow-up (18 comparisons; WMD 1·04 kg [95% CI 0·06 to 2·03]; I(2)=78%), and when the difference in serum triglycerides between the two interventions at follow-up was at least 0·06 mmol/L (17 comparisons; 1·38 kg [0·50 to 2·25]; I(2)=62%).

Interpretation: These findings suggest that the long-term effect of low-fat diet intervention on bodyweight depends on the intensity of the intervention in the comparison group. When compared with dietary interventions of similar intensity, evidence from RCTs does not support low-fat diets over other dietary interventions for long-term weight loss.

Funding: National Institutes of Health and American Diabetes Association.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest statement

Drs. Tobias, Chen, Manson, and Willett have no disclosures.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA Flow Diagram
Figure 2
Figure 2
Random effects pooled weighted mean difference (kg) for low-fat vs. comparator dietary interventions from 53 randomized trials reporting at least 1 year of follow-up, by weight loss intention and comparator intervention.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Higgins JPTAD, JAC Sterne, editors. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 510 [Internet] 2011 Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.: The Cochrane Collaboration.
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–560. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Willett W, Stampfer M, Chu NF, Spiegelman D, Holmes M, Rimm E. Assessment of questionnaire validity for measuring total fat intake using plasma lipid levels as criteria. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154(12):1107–1112. - PubMed
    1. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088–1101. - PubMed
    1. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–634. - PMC - PubMed