A LOW-CARBOHYDRATE KETOGENIC DIET REDUCES

BODY MASS WITHOUT COMPROMISING PERFORMANCE

IN POWERLIFTING AND OLYMPIC WEIGHTLIFTING
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

ATHLETES
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/05/2024

DAVID A. GREENE, BENJAMIN J. VARLEY, TIMOTHY B. HARTWIG, PHILLIP CHAPMAN, AND

MICHAEL RIGNEY
School of Exercise Science, Australian Catholic University, Strathfield, New South Wales, Australia

ABSTRACT and athletes should consider using an LCKD to achieve

Greene, DA, Varley, BJ, Hartwig, TB, Chapman, P, and Rigney, M. targeted weight reduction goals for weight class sports.
A low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet reduces body mass KEY WORDS weight-making, strength, powerlifters, Olympic
without compromising performance in powerlifting and weight lifters, weight loss, carbohydrate restriction
Olympic weightlifting athletes. J Strength Cond Res 32(12):
3382–3391, 2018—Weight class athletes use weight-making
strategies to compete in specific weight categories with an INTRODUCTION

W
optimum power-to-weight ratio. There is evidence that low car-
eight class sports require athletes to maximize
bohydrate diets might offer specific advantages for weight performance while carefully controlling body
reduction without the negative impact on strength and power weight to compete in a specific weight class
previously hypothesized to accompany carbohydrate restric- with an optimum power-to-weight ratio.
tion. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine Competing at the upper-end of a weight class is advanta-
whether a low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet (LCKD) could be geous, and most athletes therefore aim to transiently reduce
used as a weight reduction strategy for athletes competing in body weight to make weight for competition. Targeted
the weight class sports of powerlifting and Olympic weightlift- weight reduction can be accomplished by energy deficit
ing. Fourteen intermediate to elite competitive lifting athletes (34), but rapid weight loss strategies are also frequently used
(age 34 6 10.5, n = 5 female) consumed an ad libitum usual (15). Reducing weight is challenging, and weight-making
diet (UD) (.250 g daily intake of carbohydrates) and an ad strategies are not always effective for all athletes. Weight-
libitum LCKD (#50 g or #10% daily intake of carbohydrates) making strategies can also result in impaired performance
in random order, each for 3 months in a crossover design. (40), compromised lean body mass (LBM (12)), and delete-
Lifting performance, body composition, resting metabolic rate, rious health outcomes (10,15). Strategies that allow athletes
blood glucose, and blood electrolytes were measured at base- to effectively reduce body weight without compromising
line, 3 months, and 6 months. The LCKD phase resulted in health or performance are therefore of importance.
significantly lower body mass (23.26 kg, p = 0.038) and lean Recent studies in athletic and nonathletic populations
have shown weight loss without energy restriction using
mass (22.26 kg, p = 0.016) compared with the UD phase.
diets that reduce carbohydrate and increase fat intake
Lean mass losses were not reflected in lifting performances
(1,20,26,31,36,41). There is also some evidence that weight
that were not different between dietary phases. No other differ-
loss arises from reductions in fat mass with a concomitant
ences in primary or secondary outcome measures were found preservation of lean mass (3,26,38,41). Low-carbohydrate,
between dietary phases. Weight class athletes consuming an high-fat diets might therefore be a useful weight-making
ad libitum LCKD decreased body mass and achieved lifting strategy for athletes competing in weight class sports. How-
performances that were comparable with their UD. Coaches ever, before such dietary strategies could be recommended,
they would need to also demonstrate that they do not com-
promise performance. The impact of low-carbohydrate,
Address correspondence to David A. Greene, [email protected]. high-fat diets on athletic performance has been explored in
32(12)/3373–3382 a number of studies (20,26,41). Most studies have investi-
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research gated aerobic performances in endurance-based sports.
Ó 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association However, a few recent studies have examined the effects of

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2018 | 3373

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Ketogenic Diet Reduces Body Mass, Not Performance
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/05/2024

Figure 1. CONSORT flow diagram. LCKD = low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet; UD = usual diet.

low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets on strength and power. Little is known about the mechanisms underlying weight
Sawyer et al. (31) showed maintenance in strength and reduction and body composition changes during LCKD.
power after short-term (7 days) carbohydrate restriction in Altering macronutrient intake could affect body weight
resistance training men and women. In resistance training through changes in fluid and fuel storage. Transitioning to an
men, increases in strength and power were comparable LCKD reduces fluid retention (25,29) and stored glycogen (16)
between an 8-week low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet that would both contribute to reductions in weight. However,
(LCKD) group and a group consuming a high- the reductions in weight associated with these initial adapta-
carbohydrate, western diet (41). Paoli et al. (26) reported tions to LCKD are modest, and additional factors seem likely.
a preservation of strength in elite gymnasts after a 4-week An LCKD alter the efficiency of metabolic pathways (11), pro-
ketogenic diet. Collectively, these studies suggest that a low- mote the oxidation of fatty acids (37,39), and could alter resting
carbohydrate, high-fat diet or LCKD might be useful for and exercising energy expenditure (8), but additional studies are
reducing body weight without compromising strength and needed to better understand the contribution of these mecha-
power. However, with the exception of the study by Paoli nisms to weight loss during LCKD.
et al. (26), previous studies have used recreational athletes. The role of altered skeletal muscle metabolism during LCKD
Therefore, the efficacy of LCKD for performance and body and the impact on training, adaptation, and performance are
composition among athletes competing in weight class also unclear. Currently, sports dietary guidelines for strength
sports that require maximal strength and power remains and power performance emphasize a high-carbohydrate intake.
underexplored. This is related to concerns of the impact of glycogen depletion
the TM

3374 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 1. Composition of diets.*†

UD LCKD

Mean 6SD Mean 6SD p

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

Carbohydrate (g$d21) 222.8 54.9 39.3 10.8 0.001

Male 247.7 51.7 41.6 11.6
Female 188.0 41.1 36.0 9.7
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/05/2024

Fat (g$d21) 78.7 23.7 163.8 43.7 0.001

Male 89.7 21.7 189.3 33.6
Female 63.4 18.1 128.1 28.8
Protein (g$d21) 119.2 50.3 121.3 36.6 0.844
Male 132.8 55.5 134.7 36.2
Female 100.3 39.5 102.6 31.0
Carbohydrate (%) 44.8 4.8 8.1 2.0 0.001
Male 44.7 2.8 7.5 2.1
Female 45.1 7.1 8.9 1.7
Fat (%) 33.2 6.0 69.1 5.6 0.001
Male 33.7 6.2 70.1 6.6
Female 32.4 6.3 67.6 4.1
Protein (%) 22.0 6.0 22.9 4.6 0.492
Male 21.7 6.5 22.4 5.7
Female 22.5 5.8 23.5 2.9
Energy intake (kJ$d21) 8,609 2,103 8,671 2005 0.895
Male 9,653.2 1885.4 9,868.1 1,322.9
Female 7,147.5 1,500.9 6,995.5 1,554.5

*UD = usual diet; LCKD = low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet.

†n = 12; female = 5 and male = 7.

on fatigue and adaptation (4,28), but the role of exogenous METHODS

carbohydrate in this context has recently been challenged Experimental Approach to the Problem
(9,27). There is, for example, no evidence that carbohydrates To test the hypothesis, a randomized, crossover design was
are required for signaling of mammalian target of rapamycin selected. In addition to reducing confounding variables at
complex 1 during muscle protein synthesis (6). Dietary carbo- baseline, a crossover design provided sufficient power while
hydrate also does not augment muscle protein synthesis when recruiting competitive athletes for a long-term dietary
dietary protein is adequate (27). Furthermore, an LCKD- intervention. Subjects consumed an ad libitum UD (.250
induced metabolic shift toward fat oxidation (and glycogen g daily intake of carbohydrates) and an ad libitum LCKD
sparing) could have favorable effects on ATP resynthesis during (#50 g or #10% daily intake of carbohydrates) in random
resistance exercise training (39). order, each for 3 months in a crossover design with a 2-week
There is evidence that an LCKD might offer specific washout. Lifting performance, body composition, resting
advantages for weight reduction without the negative impact metabolic rate (RMR), blood glucose, and blood electrolytes
on strength and power previously hypothesized to accompany were measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months at the
carbohydrate restriction. To the best of our knowledge, no university’s laboratories. Subjects used online tools (MyFit-
studies have explored the efficacy of an LCKD as a weight- nessPal, Baltimore, MD, USA and Qualtrics, Provo, Utah,
making strategy for competitive weight class athletes by USA) to log self-reported dietary intake, self-monitored
examining the impact on body weight, body composition, blood glucose and blood ketones, and weekly training meas-
and performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to ures. Self-reported measures were logged 3 times per week
determine whether an LCKD could be used as an efficacious on 2 weekdays and a weekend day in weeks 1, 4, 7, 10, and
weight reduction strategy for athletes competing in the weight 12 in each study phase.
class sports of powerlifting and Olympic weightlifting. A
secondary purpose was to examine metabolic changes in fuel Subjects
utilization and energy expenditure during LCKD. We hypoth- Fourteen intermediate to elite level powerlifters and Olympic
esized that consuming an ad libitum LCKD would result in weight lifters (mean 6 SD; age 35 6 11 years, range 24-53 years,
practically meaningful reductions in body mass with lifting mass 78 6 12 kg, body fat 17.5 6 4.6%, n = 5 female) who
performances comparable with usual diet (UD). competed at a local to national level were recruited to

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2018 | 3375

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Ketogenic Diet Reduces Body Mass, Not Performance

these tests, subjects were allowed to

eat as part of their preparations for
TABLE 2. Training characteristics.*†
performance testing.
UD LCKD
Diet. After baseline testing, subjects
Mean 6SD Mean 6SD p
were randomly allocated to a diet
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

Training sessions$wk 21 4.2 1.5 4.3 1.2 0.696 phase. Diets were prescriptive with
Training mins$wk21 324 116 332 98 0.630 regards to carbohydrate intake but
Training load 2003 705 2089 735 0.587 were ad libitum for total calories.
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/05/2024

*UD = usual diet; LCKD = low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet.

During the LCKD phase, subjects
†Training load = training minutes 3 rate of perceived exertion (arbitrary units). were prescribed target macronutrient
levels (70% fat, 20% protein, and #50
g or #10% carbohydrates) and were
provided with nutritional counseling
participate in this study (Figure 1: CONSORT flow diagram). and resources to assist in adhering to the LCKD. Resources
Two subjects withdrew from the study; one due to illness and included print- and electronic-suggested daily meal plans,
the other due to scheduling conflicts. Subjects had an average meal recipes, and lists of foods “encouraged to eat,” “eat in
lifting experience of 6.2 6 5.8 years and were free of limiting moderation,” and “foods to avoid.” The food lists encour-
musculoskeletal injuries at the time of recruitment. Inclusion aged a focus on eating unprocessed food, consisting of cru-
criteria included age between 18 and 55 years and ciferous and green leafy vegetables, raw nuts and seeds, eggs,
a minimum 6 months competitive lifting experience. fish, animal meats, dairy products, and plant oils and fats
After being informed of the risks and benefits of the study, from avocados, coconuts, and olives (23). Suggested meal
subjects provided written consent. The study procedures were plans and meal recipes were formulated to meet subject’s
approved by the Australian Catholic University Institutional micronutrient requirements (43) with special attention to
Review Board (2016-76H). The trial was registered sodium intake because sodium losses have been shown to
(ACTRN12618000035224). All subjects completed and submit- occur during LCKD (29). Subjects and researchers used an
LCKD community Facebook group during the study period
ted signed, informed consent prior to commencement.
to facilitate communication and sharing of LCKD meal rec-
Procedures ipes. No meals were provided to subjects. Some subjects in
All subjects attended the university’s laboratories to under- the LCKD phases initially expressed concern about the
take testing at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Subjects impact of high-saturated fat diet options on cardiovascular
arrived in the morning in a fasted state and were instructed health and body composition. In these instances, subjects
to not consume caffeine or alcohol, or engage in intense were given copies of recent articles demonstrating the lack
training or exercise in the 24 hours before testing. Body of evidence for “unhealthy” effects of saturated fats (19,23).
composition, resting energy expenditure, and blood meas- During the UD phase, subjects were instructed to consume
ures were conducted in the fasted state. After completing their UD. To mitigate the carry-over effect of being in the

TABLE 3. Primary and secondary study outcomes.*†

Baseline UD LCKD

Body mass (kg) 77.9 (70.2–85.8) 79.4 (70.6–88.2) 76.0 (68.9–83.2)

Fat mass (kg) 13.7 (11.2–16.2) 14.7 (12.1–17.4) 13.7 (11.2–16.2)
Lean mass (kg) 61.1 (54.1–68.1) 61.5 (54.0–69.1) 59.3 (52.8–65.9)
1RM strength (kg) 132 (110–154) 137 (115–160) 135 (111–160)
RMR (kJ$d21) 7,322 (5,983–8,665) 7,586 (6,485–8,673) 7,540 (6,360–8,715)
Measured RQ 0.79 (0.75–0.83) 0.77 (0.75–0.80) 0.76 (0.71–0.80)
Glucose (mmol$L21) 4.9 (4.6–5.2) 5.1 (4.8–5.4) 4.9 (4.6–5.3)
Potassium (mmol$L21) 4.3 (4.1–4.5) 4.4 (4.2–4.6) 4.7 (4.3–5.1)
Sodium (mmol$L21) 145 (143.7–146.3) 143.9 (142.6–145.2) 145.1 (144.0–146.2)

*UD = usual diet; LCKD = low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet; 1RM = 1 repetition maximum; RMR = resting metabolic rate;
RQ = respiratory quotient; CI = confidence interval.
†Values are presented as mean (95% CI) for 12 participants.

the TM

3376 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

LCKD phase, subjects crossing over to UD were instructed Lifting Performance. One repetition maximum (1RM) was
to ensure they consumed .250 g daily intake of carbohy- used as the primary performance variable. After a self-
drates. This amount of carbohydrate was a conservative es- selected warm-up, subjects performed either one or all of
timate based on the usual carbohydrate intake of subjects their competition lifts: snatch and clean and jerk (Olympic
during the UD phase. weightlifting), squat, bench press, and deadlift (power-
Total daily energy intake and macronutrient and lifting). Subjects self-selected the lifts for performance
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

micronutrient composition were self-reported through the testing. This approach was used to minimize the learning
online smartphone application, MyFitnessPal. Researchers effect that would have occurred if subjects were required
administrated subject’s MyFitnessPal user accounts and to perform unfamiliar lifts. We believe this is the optimal
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/05/2024

therefore had the ability to assess and modify the subject’s method for assessing performance among well-trained
macronutrient and micronutrient intake throughout the athletes. Lifting performances were assessed in a weight-
intervention. MyFitnessPal has previously been used in clin- lifting facility using international competition standard
ical trials to track dietary intake (17). Subjects used digital bars and plates (Eleiko, Halmstad, Sweden) under the
kitchen scales to measure food portions for total energy supervision of a researcher qualified to officiate power-
intake estimates. Subjects in this study were experienced at lifting and Olympic weightlifting competitions. Perfor-
monitoring energy intake and macronutrient composition mance testing mimicked a competition environment with
because they were accustomed to doing this as part of their calls to time to completion. Highest lifts were used for
analysis. Athletes and researchers relied on established
usual practices in their respective weight class sports.
personal best lifting performances to gauge the reproduc-
ibility of lifting performances during research testing. All
Training. Being competitive athletes, subjects had varying subjects knew their personal best lifting performances that
individual training and competition schedules during the could be verified from competition records.
study period. Subjects were instructed to maintain their
normal training during both dietary phases of the study and
Body Composition. Body mass was measured using electronic
continued to compete according to their normal competi-
scales (SECA 813; Hamburg, Germany, 6 0.1 kg). Whole-
tion schedule. Consequently, subjects were in various phases body composition and estimates of fat and lean mass were
of their training cycle throughout the study. Because measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA;
standardizing the competition and training schedule was Medilink Medix DR, 2D-Fan beam, Montpellier, France).
not possible or desirable, we ensured that athletes’ compet- Post-test analysis was performed using manufacturer soft-
itions did not coincide with the baseline, 3-month, and 6- ware (Medilink-Eazix Software). The coefficient of variation
month research testing. This was accomplished by altering (CV%) in our laboratory was obtained after the scanning of 9
either the research start date or negotiating changes to healthy university students twice, following repositioning.
individual athletes competition schedules. Therefore, Whole-body CV (%) was 1.3 for lean mass and 1.5 for fat
although training cycles varied during the study period, no mass.
athletes engaged in any other form of weight-reducing
strategy within 2 weeks of research testing. Subjects Resting Energy Expenditure and Fuel Utilization. Resting
recorded the quality and quantity of training undertaken in metabolic rate was estimated by indirect calorimetry using
both study phases by reporting training session frequency, breath-by-breath gas analysis with a ventilated hood canopy
duration, and intensity using a 10-point scale. (QUARK CPET; COSMED, Rome, Italy). After 30 minutes

TABLE 4. Post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment for outcomes with main effects.*†

Adjusted within-subject
factors Mean difference SE 95% CI p Partial p2

Mass (kg) Baseline 2 UD 1.56 0.95 21.16 to 4.28 0.392 0.35

Baseline 2 LCKD 21.7 0.93 24.37 to 0.98 0.298
LCKD 2 UD 23.26 1.07 26.34 to 20.18 0.038*
Lean mass (kg) Baseline 2 UD 0.52 0.48 20.87 to 1.91 0.923 0.45
Baseline 2 LCKD 21.74 0.62 23.51 to 0.02 0.54
LCKD 2 UD 22.26 0.64 24.10 to 20.42 0.016*

*CI = confidence interval; UD = usual diet; LCKD = low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet.

†Within-subject factors adjusted for the effect of diet sequence.

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2018 | 3377

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Ketogenic Diet Reduces Body Mass, Not Performance
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/05/2024

Figure 2. Change in (A) total body mass in kg, (B) lean mass in kg, (C) fat mass in kg, (D) power-to-mass ratio in %, and (E) lifting performance in % during the
2 dietary phases. Changes are relative to baseline measurements. Solid bars indicate mean group change. Connected dots indicate individual changes. Total
body mass (p = 0.038) and lean mass (p = 0.016) were significantly different in the 2 diets. Power-to-mass ratio = lifting performance (kg)/body mass (kg); UD =
usual diet; LCKD = low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet.

the TM

3378 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

of rest in a supine position, expired gases were measured in (4). Two subjects were excluded from RMR analysis because
awake subjects for 20 minutes. Room temperature was their tests exceeded the maximum CV for gas variables. All
thermoneutral, between 22 and 258 C, and lights were statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics
dimmed. The first 5 minutes of data were discarded, and (V.24.0 for Windows).
a CV of ,10% for oxygen (V_ O2) and carbon dioxide (V_ CO2)
was set as the criteria for a test to be accepted as valid, as per RESULTS
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

standard practice for RMR measurement (5). V_ O2 and V_ CO2 There were significant differences in carbohydrate
were used to calculate respiratory quotient (RQ) to deter- (p = 0.001) and fat (p = 0.001) intake during LCKD com-
mine resting fuel utilization. pared to UD with no differences in total energy intake or
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/05/2024

protein intake (Table 1). Fasting blood ketones (b-hydroxy-

butyrate) were elevated during LCKD (0.4 6 0.2 mmol$L21;
Blood Sampling and Analysis. Fasting blood glucose and
range 0.2–1.7). There were no differences in training varia-
electrolytes (sodium and potassium) were measured in the
bles during LCKD and UD (Table 2).
laboratory at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. A small
Primary and secondary outcome variables are shown in
capillary blood sample (95 ml) was obtain using dermal
Table 3. Table 4 shows the mean differences for outcomes
puncture and analyzed using a hand-held blood analyzer
with main effects. Within-subject factors in this table have
(I-STAT Chem 8 + cartridge and I-STAT1-300; Abbott Aus-
been adjusted for the effect of diet sequence.
tralasia, Macquarie Park, Australia). Sodium and potassium
Diet had a significant main effect on body mass F (2, 20) =
were monitored because electrolyte losses can accompany
5.449, p = 0.013, partial p2 = 0.35 (Table 3). Post hoc analysis
fluid losses during the transition to an LCKD, which can
revealed that body mass was significantly lower at the end of
result in performance decrements (29). To assist in verifying
the 3-month LCKD phase compared with the end of the 3-
dietary compliance, subjects in the LCKD phase measured
month UD phase with a mean difference adjusted for the
their own blood ketones (b-Hydroxybutyrate) and glucose
effect of diet sequence of 23.26 6 1.07 kg, (95% confidence
using a portable analyzer (Freestyle Optimum Neo; Abbott
interval [CI], 26.34 to 20.18; p = 0.038). Similarly, diet had
Diabetes Care, Maidenhead, United Kingdom). At baseline,
a significant main effect on lean mass F (2, 20) = 8.217, p =
subjects were taught how to obtain a finger prick blood
0.002, partial p2 = 0.45 over time. Lean mass was signifi-
sample and use the analyzer. Subjects were then provided
cantly lower at the end of the 3-month LCKD phase com-
with a personal portable analyzer with which to perform
pared with the end of the 3-month UD phase with a mean
these measures on waking and in a fasted state.
difference adjusted for the effect of diet sequence of 22.26 6
Statistical Analyses 0.64 kg, (95% CI, 24.10 to 20.42; p = 0.016). There were no
Effect sizes from pilot data collected in our laboratory were other main effects in primary outcome variables (fat mass
used in an a priori power analysis for repeated-measures and 1RM strength) or secondary outcome variables (RMR
analysis of variance (ANOVA). The trial was designed to and RQ).
provide 80% power to detect meaningful changes in body Figure 2 presents individual and group mean changes in
weight between dietary phases. All data were checked for body composition and performance variables during the
normal distribution and outliers at each time point using LCKD and UD phases compared with measures at baseline.
Shapiro-Wilk tests (p $ 0.05) and boxplots, respectively.
Descriptive continuous data are presented as mean 6 SD DISCUSSION
with paired-sample t-tests used to explore differences in To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore
independent variables between dietary phases. A 1-way the effect of an LCKD on body mass, body composition, and
repeated-measures ANOVA was used to test the overall performance in athletes competing in weight class strength
hypothesis that the means of primary outcome variables: and power sports. Although many strategies are available for
(a) body mass, (b) fat mass, (c) lean mass, and (d) 1RM athletes wanting to reduce weight, weight-making strategies
strength performance, and secondary outcomes: (a) RMR are not without risks and are not universally effective for all
and (b) RQ, were equal between baseline, UD, and LCKD. athletes. Powerlifting and Olympic weightlifting athletes in
A between-subject factor of diet order (baseline, UD, and this study decreased body mass and achieved lifting perform-
LCKD; baseline, LCKD, and UD) was included to adjust ances that were comparable with their UD when consuming
for the effect of diet sequence on within-subject factors. an ad libitum LCKD.
The assumption of sphericity was assessed by Mauchly’s test The LCKD resulted in meaningful reductions in body
of sphericity. Whenever the hypothesis was rejected and mass compared with both baseline and the end of the UD
a significant main effect identified, we performed a post phase. The physiological basis for this mass loss is not
hoc pairwise comparison with Bonferroni adjustment. A entirely clear. Stored glycogen and the accompanying
p value ,0.05 was considered statistically significant, and storage of water contribute up to 2 kg of weight loss during
partial-eta squared (p2) was used to report effect size with either energy or carbohydrate restriction (16). After account-
0.01 considered small, 0.06 medium, and 0.14 large effects ing for weight loss likely to be associated with glycogen

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2018 | 3379

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Ketogenic Diet Reduces Body Mass, Not Performance

losses, the mass loss experienced by most subjects in this mates of the distribution of water between intracellular and
study was greater than expected based on subjects’ energy extracellular compartments (32), which are perturbed during
intake and energy expenditure. Greater than expected mass carbohydrate restriction. This has limited our interpretation of
loss during ad libitum LCKD has previously been reported. the LBM losses observed in this study. A 4-compartment
For a recent review, see Noakes et al. (23). A reduced energy model of body composition such as that used by Wilson
intake as a result of a greater satiating effect of LCKD has et al. (42) could account for changes in total body water and
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

previously been proposed as a mechanism contributing to would be a superior approach for assessing the impact of
weight loss during LCKD (13). However, in this study, sub- LCKD on body composition. Additional studies are needed
jects’ reported energy intakes were similar during the 2 die- to determine the effect of LCKD on LBM in resistance-trained
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/05/2024

tary phases. There is growing interest in the metabolic subjects.

effects of LCKD that could contribute to greater than ex- Our study found that neither training quality (the ability of
pected weight loss. Several mechanisms that seem to facili- athletes to maintain their usual training load) nor lifting
tate weight loss may contribute to the efficacy of LCKD for performances were adversely affected during a relatively long
weight loss (11). The thermogenic effect of digesting greater exposure to an LCKD. This is supported by recent studies that
amounts of dietary protein could account for the apparent have shown a preservation of strength in resistance training
greater than expected weight loss during LCKD (14). How- individuals consuming low-carbohydrate diets (26,31,41). Sports
ever, protein intakes in the current study were similar during dietary approaches for short-duration, resistance exercise have
the 2 dietary phases. The role of changes in RMR during traditionally advised a high-carbohydrate intake. This is likely
LCKD have also been explored as possibly contributing to based on evidence supporting the importance of glycogen as
weight loss (8,11). In our study, RMR was not different dur- both a fuel for exercise and regulator of skeletal muscle adapta-
ing the 2 dietary phases, but changes to RMR are expected tion responses to training (4,28). Thus, dietary strategies that
to accompany the weight loss observed during the LCKD involve carbohydrate restriction have been believed to compro-
phase. Weight loss predictably reduces RMR (7,22). This mise strength and power performances and longer-term adap-
adaptive reduction in RMR is typically reported to occur tation as a result of diet-induced glycogen depletion (18). Yet,
among overweight or obese subjects when they lose weight; deleterious effects of restricted exogenous carbohydrate have
however, this effect has also been demonstrated in athletes not been demonstrated in resistance exercise (9). Creer et al.
losing similar amounts of weight to subjects in this study (6) studied human muscle cellular growth pathways during
(21). Although our study may be underpowered to detect a low-carbohydrate diet and found no effect of either low exog-
small intervention differences in RMR, the potential for enous carbohydrate or low muscle glycogen on signaling of
LCKD to preserve RMR during weight loss is intriguing mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1, a crucial step in
and is supported by emerging theories of weight loss and muscle protein synthesis. Moreover, dietary carbohydrate does
energy balance. In a recent crossover study of overweight not seem to augment muscle protein synthesis when dietary
and obese patients, a 10–15% reduction in total body weight protein is adequate (27). It is also unclear whether glycogen
resulted in decreases in RMR favoring weight regain that depletion during LCKD persists beyond the initial 4–6 weeks
were greatest with the low-fat diet phase and least with of carbohydrate restriction. Volek et al. (37) recently showed
the very low-carbohydrate diet phase (8). that muscle glycogen was not different in long-term adapted
In the current study, there was a significant decrease in LCKD endurance athletes compared with matched controls
LBM after LCKD relative to UD. Lean body mass losses are consuming a high-carbohydrate diet. Besides exogenous carbo-
an undesirable consequence of weight reduction because of hydrate intake, glycogen storage is influenced by provision of
the potential negative effects on performance. Lean body gluconeogenic substrates, insulinemic amino acids, glucose
mass losses can occur during energy restriction (10). During uptake into muscle, and insulin sensitivity (4). Although muscle
LCKD, a greater utilization of amino acids has been propo- glycogen was not assessed in this study, it is clear that exoge-
sed to contribute to LBM losses (35). Despite a shift toward nous carbohydrates are not obligatory for glycogen synthesis,
fat utilization during carbohydrate restriction, some obliga- and glycogen depletion may not be detrimental to muscle pro-
tory requirement for glucose remains. To fulfill this need, tein synthesis and therefore long-term muscle adaptations.
gluconeogenic pathways use amino acids to produce glucose Low-carbohydrate diets result in a metabolic shift in fuel
and might therefore contribute to protein catabolism (24). availability and utilization that include increases in fat
However, a number of studies have demonstrated a preser- oxidation (37,39) and the production of ketones as an alter-
vation of LBM during low-carbohydrate diets (3,26,38,41). nate fuel source when glucose is low (30,37). These adapta-
Furthermore, the measured LBM losses in this study were tions also do not seem to be detrimental for lifting
not accompanied by decrements in lifting performances. performance. Waldman et al. (39) recently hypothesized that
Recent studies have shown that DXA may overestimate an increased fat utilization could have favorable effects on
losses in LBM during carbohydrate restriction and ATP resynthesis during resistance exercise by increasing
particularly in athletic populations (2,35). Dual-energy aceyl-CoA dependency on free fatty acids and sparing gly-
X-ray absorptiometry measurement of LBM relies on esti- cogen. Several studies have explored the role of ketones as
the TM

3380 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

a fuel during endurance exercise (30,37), but the role of ke- are not universally effective for reducing weight and can be
tones as a fuel during resistance exercise is unknown. In this associated with a number of negative side effects. In this
study, there was some evidence of a shift in fuel utilization study, a 12-week ad libitum LCKD resulted in practically
during LCKD, but the findings were not clear. There was meaningful reductions in body weight without compromis-
a trend toward greater fat oxidation at rest during LCKD, ing training or performance and therefore seems safe and
but differences were not significant. Fasting blood ketones suitable to resistance trained athletes who desire lower body
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

(b-hydroxybutyrate) during LCKD were elevated mass. We have thus demonstrated an alternate weight-
(mean = 0.4 mmol$L21; range 0.2–1.7) to levels comparable making strategy for weight class athletes involved in power-
with previous studies of very low dietary carbohydrate diets lifting and Olympic weightlifting. An LCKD might also be
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/05/2024

(39,43), but in some individual subjects, ketone levels did not applicable to other popular weight class sports including
rise beyond levels expected during normal carbohydrate combat sports, but this needs to be explored in future studies.
availability. Therefore, the role of altered fuel utilization in Coaches and athletes should consider using an LCKD to
this study is unclear. achieve targeted weight reduction goals in favor of either
This study provides an important first step in informing energy restriction or rapid weight loss strategies.
evidence-based dietary approaches for weight class lifting
athletes. Implementing dietary interventions in a real-world ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
setting presents a number of challenges. To overcome some This project was not funded by any company or manufac-
of these challenges, subjects in this study were prescribed ad turer. The results of this study do not constitute endorse-
libitum diets in both dietary phases that differed only in the ment by the authors or the National Strength and
relative proportions of macronutrients and were specifically Conditioning Association. No authors have any competing
instructed to not engage in energy restriction. Underreport- interests to declare. The authors thank K. Urban and J.
ing energy intake, a major challenge in energy restriction Raubenheimer for their statistical advice.
(33), was therefore largely eliminated and thus overcame
some of the limitations of self-reporting of dietary intake.
Similarly, training approaches were not controlled in the REFERENCES
current study. Standardized training programs are likely to 1. Bazzano, LA, Hu, T, Reynolds, K, Yao, L, Bunol, C, Liu, Y, et al.
Effects of low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets: A randomized trial.
accentuate a training effect (41). In the current study, expe- Ann Intern Med 161: 309–318, 2014.
rienced lifters followed individualized training programs and 2. Bone, LJ, Ross, LM, Tomcik, AK, Jeacocke, AN, Hopkins, GW, and
were assessed for performance changes using their usual lifts Burke, ML. Manipulation of muscle creatine and glycogen changes
nullifying learning effects and reporting realistic and applica- DXA estimates of body composition. Med Sci Sports Exerc 49: 1029–
1035, 2017.
ble performance outcomes. However, a number of limita-
3. Bueno, NB, de Melo, ISV, de Oliveira, SL, and da Rocha Ataide, T.
tions are needed to be recognized. To promote adherence Very-low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet v. low-fat diet for long-term
and minimize the burden on subjects, laboratory testing was weight loss: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J
conducted at only 3 time points. Although diet order effects Nutr 110: 1178–1187, 2013.
could be statistically controlled, additional data collection at 4. Burke, LM, van Loon, LJC, and Hawley, JA. Postexercise muscle
glycogen resynthesis in humans. J Appl Physiol 122: 1055–1067,
the start of each new phase of the study could have strength-
2017.
ened comparisons by establishing new baselines before diet
5. Compher, C, Frankenfield, D, Keim, N, and Roth-Yousey, L. Best
crossover. Furthermore, a 2-week washout period may have practice methods to apply to measurement of resting metabolic rate
been insufficient to eliminate carry-over effects of the pre- in adults: A systematic review. J Am Diet Assoc 106: 881–903, 2006.
vious dietary phase. However, random allocation in the bal- 6. Creer, A, Gallagher, P, Slivka, D, Jemiolo, B, Fink, W, and Trappe, S.
anced crossover design somewhat diminished the influence Influence of muscle glycogen availability on ERK1/2 and Akt
signaling after resistance exercise in human skeletal muscle. J Appl
of the short washout period. In this study, there were insuf- Physiol 99: 950–956, 2005.
ficient subjects to explore intervention sex differences in our 7. Dulloo, AG and Schutz, Y. Adaptive thermogenesis in resistance to
mixed sex cohort. The ad libitum dietary design also resulted obesity therapies: Issues in quantifying thrifty energy expenditure
in 1 subject having a different energy intake during the 2 phenotypes in humans. Curr Obes Rep 4: 230–240, 2015.
dietary phases. This subject’s long-term UD involved a sub- 8. Ebbeling, CB, Swain, JF, Feldman, HA, Wong, WW, Hachey, DL,
Garcia-Lago, E, et al. Effects of dietary composition on energy
stantively restrictive caloric intake. After being instructed to expenditure during weight-loss maintenance. JAMA 307: 2627–
switch to a 3-month ad libitum LCKD, this subject’s total 2634, 2012.
caloric intake increased significantly. Nevertheless, this effect 9. Escobar, KA, VanDusseldorp, TA, and Kerksick, CM. Carbohydrate
would act as a disadvantage for weight loss during LCKD. intake and resistance-based exercise: Are current recommendations
reflective of actual need? Br J Nutr 116: 2053–2065, 2016.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS 10. Fagerberg, P. Negative consequences of low energy availability in
natural male bodybuilding: A review. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab
Weight class sports often require athletes to transiently 22: 1–31, 2017.
reduce body weight to make weight for competition. Energy 11. Feinman, R and Fine, E. Thermodynamics and metabolic advantage
restriction and rapid weight loss strategies used by athletes of weight loss diets. Metab Syndr Relat Disord 1: 209–219, 2003.

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2018 | 3381

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Ketogenic Diet Reduces Body Mass, Not Performance

12. Garthe, I, Raastad, T, Refsnes, PE, Koivisto, A, and Sundgot-Borgen, 30. Pinckaers, PJM, Churchward-Venne, TA, Bailey, D, and van Loon,
J. Effect of two different weight-loss rates on body composition and LJ. Ketone bodies and exercise performance: The next magic bullet
strength and power-related performance in elite athletes. Int J Sport or merely hype? Sports Med 47: 383–391, 2017.
Nutr Exerc Metab 21: 97–104, 2011.
31. Sawyer, JC, Wood, RJ, Davidson, PW, Collins, SM, Matthews, TD,
13. Gibson, AA, Seimon, RV, Lee, CMY, Ayre, J, Franklin, J, Markovic, Gregory, SM, et al. Effects of a short-term carbohydrate restricted
TP, et al. Do ketogenic diets really suppress appetite? A systematic diet on strength and power performance. J Strength Cond Res 37:
review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev 16: 64–76, 2015. 2255–2262, 2013.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

14. Hall, KD. A review of the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity. 32. St-Onge, MP, Wang, Z, Horlick, M, Wang, J, and Heymsfield, SB.
Eur J Clin Nutr 71: 323–326, 2017. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry lean soft tissue hydration:
15. Khodaee, M, Olewinski, L, Shadgan, B, and Kiningham, R. Rapid Independent contributions of intra- and extracellular water. Am J
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/05/2024

weight loss in sports with weight classes. Curr Sports Med Rep 14: Physiol Endocrinol Metab 287: E842, 2004.
435–441, 2015.
33. Subar, AF, Freedman, LS, Tooze, JA, Kirkpatrick, SI, Boushey,
16. Kreitzman, SN, Coxon, AY, and Szaz, KF. Glycogen storage: C, Neuhouser, ML, et al. Addressing current criticism
Illusions of easy weight loss, excessive weight regain, and distortions regarding the value of self-report dietary data. J Nutr 145:
in estimates of body composition. Am J Clin Nutr 56: S292–S293, 2639–2645, 2015.
1992.
34. Sundgot-Borgen, J, Meyer, NL, Lohman, TG, Ackland, TR,
17. Laing, BY, Mangione, CM, Tseng, CH, Leng, M, Vaisberg, E, Maughan, RJ, Stewart, AD, et al. How to minimise the health risks
Mahida, M, et al. Effectiveness of a smartphone application for
to athletes who compete in weight-sensitive sports review and
weight loss compared to usual care in overweight primary care
position statement on behalf of the Ad Hoc Research Working
patients: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 161: S5–S12,
2014. Group on Body Composition, Health and Performance, under the
auspices of the IOC Medical Commission. Br J Sports Med 47: 1012–
18. Leveritt, M and Abernethy, PJ. Effects of carbohydrate restriction 1022, 2013.
on strength performance. J Strength Cond Res 13: 52–57, 1999.
35. Tinsley, GM and Willoughby, DS. Fat-free mass changes during
19. Malhotra, A, Redberg, RF, and Meier, P. Saturated fat does not clog ketogenic diets and the potential role of resistance training. Int J
the arteries: Coronary heart disease is a chronic inflammatory
Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 26: 78–92, 2016.
condition, the risk of which can be effectively reduced from healthy
lifestyle interventions. Br J Sports Med 51: 1111–1112, 2017. 36. Urbain, P, Strom, L, Morawski, L, Wehrle, A, Deibert, P, and Bertz,
H. Impact of a 6-week non-energy-restricted ketogenic diet on
20. McSwiney, FT, Wardrop, B, Hyde, PN, Lafountain, RA, Volek, JS,
and Doyle, L. Keto-adaptation enhances exercise performance and physical fitness, body composition and biochemical parameters in
body composition responses to training in endurance athletes. healthy adults. Nutr Metab 14: 1–11, 2017.
Metabolism 81: 25–34, 2018. 37. Volek, JS, Freidenreich, DJ, Saenz, C, Kunces, LJ, Creighton, BC,
21. Melby, CL, Schmidt, WD, and Corrigan, D. Resting metabolic rate in Bartley, JM, et al. Metabolic characteristics of keto-adapted ultra-
weight-cycling collegiate wrestlers compared with physically active, endurance runners. Metabolism 65: 100–110, 2016.
noncycling control subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 52: 409–414, 1990. 38. Volek, JS, Sharman, MJ, Love, DM, Avery, NG, Gmez, AL,
22. Müller, MJ and Bosy-Westphal, A. Adaptive thermogenesis with Scheett, TP, et al. Body composition and hormonal responses to
weight loss in humans. Obesity 21: 218–228, 2013. a carbohydrate-restricted diet. Metab Clin Exp 51: 864–870,
23. Noakes, TD and Windt, J. Evidence that supports the prescription of 2002.
low-carbohydrate high-fat diets: A narrative review. Br J Sports Med 39. Waldman, HS, Krings, BM, Basham, SA, Smith, JW, Fountain, BJ, and
51: 133–139, 2017. McAllister, MJ. Effects of a 15-day low carbohydrate, high-fat diet in
24. Owen, OE, Felig, P, Morgan, AP, Wahren, J, and Cahill, GF Jr. Liver resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res, 2017. Epub ahead of print.
and kidney metabolism during prolonged starvation. J Clin Invest 40. Webster, S, Rutt, R, and Weltman, A. Physiological effects of
48: 574–583, 1969. a weight loss regimen practiced by college wrestlers. Med Sci Sports
25. Paoli, A, Bianco, A, and Grimaldi, KA. The ketogenic diet and sport: Exerc 22: 229–234, 1990.
A possible marriage? Exerc Sport Sci Rev 43: 153–162, 2015. 41. Wilson, JM, Lowery, RP, Roberts, MD, Sharp, MH, Joy, JM, Shields,
26. Paoli, A, Grimaldi, K, Agostino, D, Cenci, L, Moro, T, Bianco, A, KA, et al. The effects of ketogenic dieting on body composition,
et al. Ketogenic diet does not affect strength performance in elite strength, power, and hormonal profiles in resistance training males.
artistic gymnasts. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 9: 34, 2012. J Strength Cond Res, 2017. Epub ahead of print.
27. Phillips, SM. A brief review of critical processes in exercise-induced 42. Wilson, JP, Strauss, BJ, Fan, B, Duewer, FW, and Shepherd, JA.
muscular hypertrophy. Sports Med 44: 71–77, 2014. Improved 4-compartment body-composition model for a clinically
28. Philp, A, Hargreaves, M, and Baar, K. More than a store: Regulatory accessible measure of total body protein. Am J Clin Nutr 97: 197–
roles for glycogen in skeletal muscle adaptation to exercise. Am J 504, 2013.
Physiol Endocrinol Metab 302: E1343–E1351, 2012. 43. Zinn, C, Rush, A, and Johnson, R. Assessing the nutrient intake of
29. Phinney, SD. Ketogenic diets and physical performance. Nutr Metab a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet: A hypothetical case
1: 7, 2004. study design. BMJ Open 8: e018846, 2018.

the TM

3382 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.