Aims
To compare the effects of a low carbohydrate diet (LCD < 100 g carbohydrate/d) and a high carbohydrate diet (HCD > 250 g carbohydrate/d) on glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in adults with type 1 diabetes.
Materials and methods
In a randomized crossover study with two 12‐week intervention arms separated by a 12‐week washout, 14 participants using sensor‐augmented insulin pumps were included. Individual meal plans meeting the carbohydrate criteria were made for each study participant. Actual carbohydrate intake was entered into the insulin pumps throughout the study.
Results
Ten participants completed the study. Daily carbohydrate intake during the two intervention periods was (mean ± standard deviation) 98 ± 11 g and 246 ± 34 g, respectively. Time spent in the range 3.9‐10.0 mmol/L (primary outcome) did not differ between groups (LCD 68.6 ± 8.9% vs. HCD 65.3 ± 6.5%, P = 0.316). However, time spent <3.9 mmol/L was less (1.9 vs. 3.6%, P < 0.001) and glycaemic variability (assessed by coefficient of variation) was lower (32.7 vs. 37.5%, P = 0.013) during LCD. No events of severe hypoglycaemia were reported. Participants lost 2.0 ± 2.1 kg during LCD and gained 2.6 ± 1.8 kg during HCD (P = 0.001). No other cardiovascular risk factors, including fasting levels of lipids and inflammatory markers, were significantly affected.
Conclusions
Compared with an intake of 250 g of carbohydrate per day, restriction of carbohydrate intake to 100 g per day in adults with type 1 diabetes reduced time spent in hypoglycaemia, glycaemic variability and weight with no effect on cardiovascular risk factors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.