Next Article in Journal
Establishing Height-for-Age Z-Score Growth Reference Curves and Stunting Prevalence in Children and Adolescents in Pakistan
Next Article in Special Issue
Change to a Plant-Based Diet Has No Effect on Strength Performance in Trained Persons in the First 8 Weeks—A 16-Week Controlled Pilot Study
Previous Article in Journal
Hg Pollution Indices along the Reis Magos River Basin—Brazil: A Precursory Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 19
10.3390/ijerph191912629
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Effects of the Ketogenic Diet on Muscle Hypertrophy in Resistance-Trained Men and Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Salvador Vargas-Molina
1,2,
José L. Gómez-Urquiza
3,
Jerónimo García-Romero
2 and
Javier Benítez-Porres
2,*
1
Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, EADE-University of Wales Trinity Saint David, 29018 Málaga, Spain
2
Physical Education and Sports Area, Faculty of Medicine, University of Málaga, 29010 Málaga, Spain
3
Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(19), 12629; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912629
Submission received: 10 August 2022 / Revised: 25 September 2022 / Accepted: 30 September 2022 / Published: 3 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Role of Ketogenic and Vegan Diet on Health, Body Composition and Athletic Performance)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Reviews focused on the ketogenic diet (KD) based on the increase in fat-free mass (FFM) have been carried out with pathological populations or, failing that, without population differentiation. The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to verify whether a ketogenic diet without programmed energy restriction generates increases in fat-free mass (FFM) in resistance-trained participants. We evaluated the effect of the ketogenic diet, in conjunction with resistance training, on fat-free mass in trained participants. Boolean algorithms from various databases (PubMed, Scopus. and Web of Science) were used, and a total of five studies were located that related to both ketogenic diets and resistance-trained participants. In all, 111 athletes or resistance-trained participants (87 male and 24 female) were evaluated in the studies analyzed. We found no significant differences between groups in the FFM variables, and more research is needed to perform studies with similar ketogenic diets and control diet interventions. Ketogenic diets, taking into account the possible side effects, can be an alternative for increasing muscle mass as long as energy surplus is generated; however, their application for eight weeks or more without interruption does not seem to be the best option due to the satiety and lack of adherence generated.

1. Introduction

Ketogenic diets (KDs) require the drastic reduction in carbohydrates (CHO), specifically to less than 50 g per day or 10% of total caloric intake, accompanied by a substantial increase in fat, and, in some cases, protein [1]. KDs have been proposed as alternatives under three general objectives: increases in athletic performance [2,3,4]; improvement of different pathologies [5], including evaluation of healthy parameters [6]; or improvements in body composition [7,8].
Research targeting body composition has focused for decades on obese patients [9], or those of normal weight but not trained [10,11]. The application of this nutritional strategy in resistance-trained participants began recently, with data obtained from our laboratory [12] and the investigations of Greene et al. [13] and Kephart et al. [14]. As a result of this, more studies have emerged that expand the evidence related to KDs and resistance-trained participants.
Additionally, research related to body composition is based on two main parameters: the reduction in adipose tissue, evaluated by fat mass (FM); and the increase in muscle hypertrophy, where fat-free mass (FFM) and muscle thickness are determined by ultrasound.
Hypertrophy is defined as an increase in muscle mass and volume. During this process, the contractile elements enlarge and the extracellular matrix expands [15]. To achieve this, it is necessary to manipulate the diet and the programming variables in strength training. Hypertrophy-targeted training focuses on the manipulation of programming variables where volume is the main variable [16], and where sets should be performed to or near failure (0–4 reps in the chamber) [17]. A wide range of repetitions, beyond 6–12, generates hypertrophy [18,19].
In this review, we will focus on increasing FFM. With regard to the increase in muscle tissue/FFM, the current evidence on nutritional strategy focuses on two basic parameters: a) generate an energy surplus; and b) consume between 1.6 and 2.2 g·kg−1 BM·d−1 protein [20]. It is reported that a smaller surplus is required in resistance-trained athletes (+5–10% above maintenance) and more in sedentary individuals and resistance-training novices (+10–20% above maintenance), to optimize protein synthesis, minimizing the accumulation of adipose tissue [20]. However, for the FM reduction phase, it is necessary to generate an energy deficit, in which the protein dose should be increased to between 1.8 and 2.7 g·kg−1 BM·d−1 [21] or even 2.3 and 3.1 g·kg−1 BM·d−1 [22] so as not to generate loss in muscle tissue. CHOs have traditionally been used as the main energy source in strength training, with levels of between 3 and 7 g·kg−1 BM·d−1 [23]. To increase muscle mass, in the off season-phase the levels recommended are between 4 and 7 g·kg−1 BM·d−1 [24], with a lipid intake between 0.8 and 1.3 g·kg−1 BM·d−1 [24]. The incorporation of KDs in the athletic and aesthetic environment, based on body composition, has now led to an alternative to generate this surplus, through the drastic reduction in CHOs and a concomitant increase in fat. For this reason, we conducted a systematic review of the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of KDs on parameters related to muscle hypertrophy in resistance-trained participants.

2. Materials and Methods

This review and meta-analysis were carried out based on the guidelines proposed by (PRISMA) [25]. We describe the methodology used to systematically present our findings on the effects of KDs on body composition in strength-trained participants. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in protocolos.io (DOI: https://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.4r3l27m9qg1y/v1 (accessed on 31 August 2022).

2.1. Search Strategy

We systematically searched online medical databases, including Web of Science, PubMed/Medline, and SCOPUS for entries up to March 2022. The following search terms were used: (“ketogenic diet” OR “ketogenic dieting” OR “low carbohydrate diet” OR “low carbohydrate ketogenic diet” OR “very low carbohydrate diet”) AND (“body composition” OR “fat-free mass” OR “lean body mass” OR “LBM” OR “FFM” OR “ultrasound”) AND (“resistance training” OR “strength training” OR “muscle” OR “muscle mass” OR “hypertrophy” OR “training hypertrophy” OR “trained men” OR “training males” OR “trained women”).

2.2. Study Selection

Titles and abstracts of all articles obtained from the initial search were individually reviewed by two authors (S.V.M and J.B.P). The inclusion criteria for the articles were: (a) randomized trials, with a minimum duration of eight weeks; (b) the use of a KD in resistance-trained participants, competitors or elite athletes; (c) evaluation of body composition by means of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), bioimpedance or ultrasound; (d) data presented as means and standard deviations; (e) no intervention using nutritional or dietary supplements; and (f) the text was in English and available in full. Exclusion criteria included: (a) research conducted on animals; (b) systematic reviews or meta-analyses or uncontrolled experimental studies; (c) research without a control group; (d) joint interventions in the KD group; and (e) research carried out with anthropometry.

2.3. Data Extraction

From each selected article, information was extracted including the name of the first author, the date of publication, the average age of the participants, and the gender of both the experimental and control groups, in addition to the study design, the participants, the duration, the composition of the diet, and the means and standard deviations (SD) of both groups. Data related to body weight and FFM were selected.
Additionally, any disagreement in the selection of material to be included by the two researchers (S.V.M and J.B.P) was resolved by a third researcher.

2.4. Quality Assessment

Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane method [26]. The elements evaluated were the following: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias.
Studies were classified as high risk of bias, low risk of bias, or unclear bias, for each item assessed, based on the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook.
RevMan Web software (London, UK) was used to develop meta-analyses. Meta-analyses were performed assessing the difference in post-intervention means and were performed with fixed effects if the heterogeneity value (I2) was less than 50%. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots.

3. Results

The flow of studies in our meta-analysis is depicted in Figure 1, from 352 possibly relevant references. Of all the investigations, one did not present a complete text, so it was discarded. References were reviewed to determine eligibility. Finally, only five investigations met the eligibility criteria. These studies included 48 participants consuming a KD diet and 53 in control groups.
The characteristics of these five randomized controlled trials are presented in Table 1. Of these studies, four were evaluated by DXA, and one by BIA [27]. In addition, one also presented ultrasound results [28]; however, the FFM data were not provided. Only one investigation did not report nutritional data, although it used an ad libitum strategy [14]. In addition, all the investigations lasted between 8 and 12 weeks; however, ref [13] a crossover study was carried out, applying 12 weeks of a KD diet, 3 weeks of wash-out, and another 12 weeks of a No-KD protocol.
None of the variables analyzed showed the existence of publication bias, and heterogeneity was 0% in all analyses.
In the total mass variable, five studies provided the necessary data, with a final sample of n = 48 participants in the intervention group and n = 48 in the control group. The mean difference with a 95% confidence interval was 0.31 (−3.15, 3.77) in favor of the control group, although the differences were not significant (p > 0.05), as shown in Figure 2.
With regard to the FFM variable, four studies were included, with a final sample of n = 35 participants in the intervention group and n = 36 in the control group. The mean difference with a 95% confidence interval was −0.57 (−3.35, 2.20) in favor of the experimental group, although the differences were not significant. (p > 0.05), as shown in Figure 3.

4. Discussion

The results of our meta-analysis did not show significant differences between the control group and the experimental group in the FFM variable, although the differences between means were favorable to the experimental group. However, the meta-analysis of Koerich et al. [30] showed better results for FFM for the non-ketogenic group. The difference between our work and previous studies is that it focuses on participants trained in strength, and the review of Koerich et al. [30] examined trained athletes from different sports modalities.
Other reviews reported increases in FFM over 386 participants, although they included different populations and protocols without RT training [31]. However, the review and meta-analysis of Ashtary-Larky et al. [8], which included 13 studies with a total of 244 participants undertaking RT training and KD diets, found significant reductions in FFM in the KD group. The loss of FFM in the meta-analysis of Ashtary-Larky [8] may be due to the fact that, of the thirteen studies evaluated, eight were carried out ad libitum [13,14,29,32,33,34,35,36], and one of them did not report the nutritional data [37]. Therefore, only four studies included specific prescriptions for the consumption of total calories [12,27,28,38]. However, while Vargas et al. [12] initially prescribed ≈39 kcal·kg−1·d−1, there was no nutritional record; therefore, we cannot say that the participants consumed the total energy required. The same difficulty applies to the study by Rhyu et al. [38] where experimental records are unavailable. In research carried out in our laboratory [29], we checked the difference between the initial nutritional prescription and the actual record. Where the prescribed intake was ≈45 kcal·kg−1·d−1, at the end of the eight weeks, the reported mean was ≈40 kcal·kg−1·d−1, unlike the group that did not engage in a KD, who reached the prescribed calorie intake at the beginning of the study. Therefore, and given that energy surplus is currently considered the main factor in increasing muscle mass [20], we must consider the main limitation to achieving it: the satiety generated by KD diets [39,40]. In fact, ad libitum KDs have shown a lower energy consumption [40], indicating it is difficult to reach an adequate intake of calories, and thus impairing adherence to the diet. The satiating effect of KDs that do not produce an increase in FFM can optimize the reduction in fat mass [8,31]. However, when total calories are equalized, there is no additional advantage in KDs [41].
Only the investigation of Wilson et al. [28] carried out a reintroduction of carbohydrates in the post-experiment evaluation. As DXA evaluates FM and FFM, and the accumulation of muscle glycogen is accompanied by approximately 3 g of water, carbohydrate loading will increase the intracellular content, FFM values will be higher, and the differences in the stored glycogen and associated water content will influence both total mass and FFM [42]. This limitation must be considered before concluding that KDs do not cause an increase in FFM, especially when accompanied by RT.
However, no research has corrected for fat-free adipose tissue (FFAT). In this regard, as the amount of adipose tissue is reduced, so will FFM, since fat-free adipose tissue is included in the DXA measurement of fat-free tissue mass [43]. In fact, considering the model proposed by Heymsfield et al. [44] to reduce the difference between the FFM component at the molecular level and the corresponding value measured at the macro level in the tissue/organ (e.g., MRI or DXA), it is assumed that 85% of adipose tissue is fat and the remaining 15% is fat-free adipose tissue (FFAT). If the participants in our study had similar increases in FFM, these data would not be entirely accurate.
It should be noted that the study by Gregory et al. [35] was excluded because, despite being Crossfit® athletes, the inclusion criteria specified only that the sample should be between 18 and 60 years old and have completed a minimum of one month of active training, which could not be considered advanced.
Although our results are not favorable for an increase in FFM with the use of a KD, it does not mean that the cross-section of skeletal muscle cannot be increased. In fact, as mentioned, DXA evaluates FM and FFM; therefore, it is not a direct indicator of muscle hypertrophy. Ultrasound evaluation has proven to be a more reliable marker for this purpose [45].
For this reason, the investigation of Wilson et al. [28] used ultrasound, in addition to DXA, finding favorable effects of a KD. This was contrary to the findings of Kephard et al. [14] of a decrease in muscle thickness in the legs, although that study involved the previously mentioned limitations in nutritional control.
Additionally, training focused on muscle mass gain is based on volume as the main programming variable [16], and is optimized with weekly volumes of between 16 and 24 series [46], where it can be more efficient to distribute it in frequency 2 [47].
An excess of series per session, in advanced participants, can lead to wasted sets, where protein synthesis is not optimized [48]. For this reason, an average volume would be between 8 and 12 sets/session, with up to 20 total sets per week recommended to reach the maximum recoverable volume [49]. In this way, the review in [50] found that carbohydrate consumption could improve strength performance in training volumes greater than 10 sets per session. Since our goal was muscle hypertrophy in advanced athletes, it does not appear that carbohydrate restriction would affect the set volume needed per session in advanced participants.
This study has some limitations. The interventions using KDs included in the meta-analysis were not exactly similar and the number of studies included in the meta-analysis was low. Thus, the results should be treated with caution and future studies should perform a protocolized and similar KD intervention.
Additionally, the use of KDs has possible side effects that must be considered in study populations. Cases of skin rash and “keto flu” have been reported, where nausea, tremors, lack of energy, vomiting, fainting, and halitosis can occur [51]. As a general rule, in non-pathological and trained subjects, as is the case in our review, the metabolic symptoms associated with the change in energy from carbohydrates to fats usually disappear in a few days.
We must emphasize that the five selected studies met the protein ranges established for the increase in myofibril proteins (1.6 and 2.2 g kg BM·d−1 of protein) [20]. In addition, we should consider Leucine as the main amino acid in protein synthesis [52,53], being found in greater quantity in the foods chosen in these investigations (dairy, meat, fish, and eggs). However, consuming more protein, and thus more Leucine per meal, will not increase myofibrillar protein synthesis [54]. None of the selected studies established plant-based diets. For these reasons, we did not find an advantage in any selected study based on a slightly higher protein intake.

5. Conclusions

We conclude that by applying a KD diet without energy restriction, significant increases in FFM can be achieved, since the total energy prevails for this objective. However, due to the satiating effect and the consequent lack of adherence that a KD generates, it does not seem to be an optimal nutritional strategy, especially if it is maintained continuously for eight weeks or more.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.V.-M. and J.B.-P.; methodology, S.V.-M., J.L.G.-U. and J.B.-P.; software, J.B.-P. and J.G.-R.; validation, J.L.G.-U. and J.B.-P.; formal analysis, S.V.-M. and J.B.-P.; investigation, S.V.-M.; resources, J.L.G.-U. and J.B.-P.; data curation, S.V.-M. and J.B.-P.; writing—original draft preparation, S.V.-M.; writing—review and editing, S.V.-M., J.L.G.-U. and J.B.-P.; visualization, J.G.-R.; supervision, J.B.-P.; project administration, J.B.-P.; funding acquisition, J.B.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Supported by the University of Málaga (Campus of International Excellence Andalucía Tech).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aragon, A.A.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Wildman, R.; Kleiner, S.; VanDusseldorp, T.; Taylor, L.; Earnest, C.P.; Arciero, P.J.; Wilborn, C.; Kalman, D.S.; et al. International society of sports nutrition position stand: Diets and body composition. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2017, 14, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Ma, S.; Suzuki, K. Keto-Adaptation and Endurance Exercise Capacity, Fatigue Recovery, and Exercise-Induced Muscle and Organ Damage Prevention: A Narrative Review. Sports 2019, 7, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Kang, J.; Ratamess, N.A.; Faigenbaum, A.D.; Bush, J.A. Ergogenic Properties of Ketogenic Diets in Normal-Weight Individuals: A Systematic Review. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2020, 39, 665–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Murphy, N.E.; Carrigan, C.T.; Margolis, L.M. High-Fat Ketogenic Diets and Physical Performance: A Systematic Review. Adv. Nutr. 2021, 12, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Husari, K.S.; Cervenka, M.C. The ketogenic diet all grown up-Ketogenic diet therapies for adults. Epilepsy Res. 2020, 162, 106319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vargas-Molina, S.; Carbone, L.; Romance, R.; Petro, J.L.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Kreider, R.B.; Bonilla, D.A.; Benitez-Porres, J. Effects of a low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet on health parameters in resistance-trained women. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2021, 121, 2349–2359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Martín-Moraleda, E.; Delisle, C.; Collado Mateo, D.; Aznar-Lain, S. Weight loss and body composition changes through ketogenic diet and physical activity: A methodological and systematic review. Nutr. Hosp. 2019, 36, 1196–1204. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ashtary-Larky, D.; Bagheri, R.; Asbaghi, O.; Tinsley, G.M.; Kooti, W.; Abbasnezhad, A.; Afrisham, R.; Wong, A. Effects of resistance training combined with a ketogenic diet on body composition: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 62, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  9. Castellana, M.; Conte, E.; Cignarelli, A.; Perrini, S.; Giustina, A.; Giovanella, L.; Giorgino, F.; Trimboli, P. Efficacy and safety of very low calorie ketogenic diet (VLCKD) in patients with overweight and obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev. Endocr. Metab. Disord 2020, 21, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Volek, J.S.; Sharman, M.J.; Love, D.M.; Avery, N.G.; Gomez, A.L.; Scheett, T.P.; Kraemer, W.J. Body composition and hormonal responses to a carbohydrate-restricted diet. Metabolism 2002, 51, 864–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Urbain, P.; Strom, L.; Morawski, L.; Wehrle, A.; Deibert, P.; Bertz, H. Impact of a 6-week non-energy-restricted ketogenic diet on physical fitness, body composition and biochemical parameters in healthy adults. Nutr. Metab. 2017, 14, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Vargas, S.; Romance, R.; Petro, J.L.; Bonilla, D.A.; Galancho, I.; Espinar, S.; Kreider, R.B.; Benítez-Porres, J. Efficacy of ketogenic diet on body composition during resistance training in trained men: A randomized controlled trial. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2018, 15, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Greene, D.A.; Varley, B.J.; Hartwig, T.B.; Chapman, P.; Rigney, M. A Low-Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diet Reduces Body Mass Without Compromising Performance in Powerlifting and Olympic Weightlifting Athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 3373–3382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kephart, W.C.; Pledge, C.D.; Roberson, P.A.; Mumford, P.W.; Romero, M.A.; Mobley, C.B.; Martin, J.S.; Young, K.C.; Lowery, R.P.; Wilson, J.M.; et al. The Three-Month Effects of a Ketogenic Diet on Body Composition, Blood Parameters, and Performance Metrics in CrossFit Trainees: A Pilot Study. Sports 2018, 6, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Schoenfeld, B.J. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2010, 24, 2857–2872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Figueiredo, V.C.; de Salles, B.F.; Trajano, G.S. Volume for Muscle Hypertrophy and Health Outcomes: The Most Effective Variable in Resistance Training. Sports Med. 2018, 48, 499–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Helms, E.R.; Cronin, J.; Storey, A.; Zourdos, M.C. Application of the Repetitions in Reserve-Based Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale for Resistance Training. Strength Cond. J. 2016, 38, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Vargas, S.; Petro, J.L.; Romance, R.; Bonilla, D.A.; Florido, M.; Kreider, R.B.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Benítez-Porres, J. Comparison of changes in lean body mass with a strength-versus muscle endurance-based resistance training program. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2019, 119, 933–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Schoenfeld, B.J.; Grgic, J.; Van Every, D.W.; Plotkin, D.L. Loading Recommendations for Muscle Strength, Hypertrophy, and Local Endurance: A Re-Examination of the Repetition Continuum. Sports 2021, 9, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Iraki, J.; Fitschen, P.; Espinar, S.; Helms, E. Nutrition Recommendations for Bodybuilders in the Off-Season: A Narrative Review. Sports 2019, 7, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Phillips, S.M.; Van Loon, L.J. Dietary protein for athletes: From requirements to optimum adaptation. J. Sports Sci. 2011, 29 (Suppl. 1), S29–S38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Helms, E.R.; Aragon, A.A.; Fitschen, P.J. Evidence-based recommendations for natural bodybuilding contest preparation: Nutrition and supplementation. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2014, 11, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Escobar, K.A.; VanDusseldorp, T.A.; Kerksick, C.M. Carbohydrate intake and resistance-based exercise: Are current recommendations reflective of actual need? Br. J. Nutr. 2016, 116, 2053–2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Slater, G.; Phillips, S.M. Nutrition guidelines for strength sports: Sprinting, weightlifting, throwing events, and bodybuilding. J. Sports Sci. 2011, 29 (Suppl. 1), S67–S77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A.; Group, P.-P. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Higgins, J.P.; Altman, D.G.; Gotzsche, P.C.; Juni, P.; Moher, D.; Oxman, A.D.; Savovic, J.; Schulz, K.F.; Weeks, L.; Sterne, J.A.; et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011, 343, d5928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Paoli, A.; Cenci, L.; Pompei, P.; Sahin, N.; Bianco, A.; Neri, M.; Caprio, M.; Moro, T. Effects of Two Months of Very Low Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diet on Body Composition, Muscle Strength, Muscle Area, and Blood Parameters in Competitive Natural Body Builders. Nutrients 2021, 13, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wilson, J.M.; Lowery, R.P.; Roberts, M.D.; Sharp, M.H.; Joy, J.M.; Shields, K.A.; Partl, J.M.; Volek, J.S.; D’Agostino, D.P. Effects of Ketogenic Dieting on Body Composition, Strength, Power, and Hormonal Profiles in Resistance Training Men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020, 34, 3463–3474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vargas-Molina, S.; Petro, J.L.; Romance, R.; Kreider, R.B.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Bonilla, D.A.; Benítez-Porres, J. Effects of a ketogenic diet on body composition and strength in trained women. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2020, 17, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Koerich, A.C.C.; Borszcz, F.K.; Thives Mello, A.; de Lucas, R.D.; Hansen, F. Effects of the ketogenic diet on performance and body composition in athletes and trained adults: A systematic review and Bayesian multivariate multilevel meta-analysis and meta-regression. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 27, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  31. Amini, M.R.; Aminianfar, A.; Naghshi, S.; Larijani, B.; Esmaillzadeh, A. The effect of ketogenic diet on body composition and anthropometric measures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 62, 3644–3657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Jabekk, P.T.; Moe, I.A.; Meen, H.D.; Tomten, S.E.; Hostmark, A.T. Resistance training in overweight women on a ketogenic diet conserved lean body mass while reducing body fat. Nutr. Metab. 2010, 7, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Wood, R.J.; Gregory, S.M.; Sawyer, J.; Milch, C.M.; Matthews, T.D.; Headley, S.A. Preservation of fat-free mass after two distinct weight loss diets with and without progressive resistance exercise. Metab. Syndr. Relat. Disord 2012, 10, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Paoli, A.; Grimaldi, K.; D’Agostino, D.; Cenci, L.; Moro, T.; Bianco, A.; Palma, A. Ketogenic diet does not affect strength performance in elite artistic gymnasts. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2012, 9, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Gregory, R.; Hamdan, H.; Torisky, D.; Akers., J. A lowcarbohydrate ketogenic diet combined with 6-weeks of crossfit training improves body composition and performance. Int. J. Sport. Exerc. Med. 2017, 3, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. LaFountain, R.A.; Miller, V.J.; Barnhart, E.C.; Hyde, P.N.; Crabtree, C.D.; McSwiney, F.T.; Beeler, M.K.; Buga, A.; Sapper, T.N.; Short, J.A.; et al. Extended Ketogenic Diet and Physical Training Intervention in Military Personnel. Mil. Med. 2019, 184, e538–e547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hadizadeh, M.; Gan, W.Y.; Mohafez, H.; Sugajima, Y. Impact of ketogenic diet on body composition during resistance training among untrained individuals the open sports. Open Sport. Sci. J. 2020, 13, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rhyu, H.S.; Cho, S.Y. The effect of weight loss by ketogenic diet on the body composition, performance-related physical fitness factors and cytokines of Taekwondo athletes. J. Exerc. Rehabil. 2014, 10, 326–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Westman, E.C.; Feinman, R.D.; Mavropoulos, J.C.; Vernon, M.C.; Volek, J.S.; Wortman, J.A.; Yancy, W.S.; Phinney, S.D. Low-carbohydrate nutrition and metabolism. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 86, 276–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Gibson, A.A.; Seimon, R.V.; Lee, C.M.; Ayre, J.; Franklin, J.; Markovic, T.P.; Caterson, I.D.; Sainsbury, A. Do ketogenic diets really suppress appetite? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes. Rev. 2015, 16, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Hall, K.D.; Chen, K.Y.; Guo, J.; Lam, Y.Y.; Leibel, R.L.; Mayer, L.E.; Reitman, M.L.; Rosenbaum, M.; Smith, S.R.; Walsh, B.T.; et al. Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 104, 324–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Tinsley, G.M.; Willoughby, D.S. Fat-Free Mass Changes During Ketogenic Diets and the Potential Role of Resistance Training. Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab. 2016, 26, 78–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Abe, T.; Dankel, S.J.; Loenneke, J.P. Body Fat Loss Automatically Reduces Lean Mass by Changing the Fat-Free Component of Adipose Tissue. Obesity 2019, 27, 357–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Heymsfield, S.B.; Gallagher, D.; Kotler, D.P.; Wang, Z.; Allison, D.B.; Heshka, S. Body-size dependence of resting energy expenditure can be attributed to nonenergetic homogeneity of fat-free mass. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2002, 282, E132–E138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Franchi, M.V.; Longo, S.; Mallinson, J.; Quinlan, J.I.; Taylor, T.; Greenhaff, P.L.; Narici, M.V. Muscle thickness correlates to muscle cross-sectional area in the assessment of strength training-induced hypertrophy. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2018, 28, 846–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Schoenfeld, B.J.; Ogborn, D.; Krieger, J.W. Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Sports Sci. 2017, 35, 1073–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Schoenfeld, B.J.; Ogborn, D.; Krieger, J.W. Effects of Resistance Training Frequency on Measures of Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2016, 46, 1689–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dankel, S.J.; Mattocks, K.T.; Jessee, M.B.; Buckner, S.L.; Mouser, J.G.; Counts, B.R.; Laurentino, G.C.; Loenneke, J.P. Frequency: The Overlooked Resistance Training Variable for Inducing Muscle Hypertrophy? Sports Med. 2017, 47, 799–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Israetel, M.; Feather, J.; Tiago, V.F.; Juneau, C.-E. Mesocycle Progression in Hypertrophy: Volume Versus Intensity. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. 2019, 42, 2–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Henselmans, M.; Bjornsen, T.; Hedderman, R.; Varvik, F.T. The Effect of Carbohydrate Intake on Strength and Resistance Training Performance: A Systematic Review. Nutrients 2022, 14, 856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bostock, E.C.S.; Kirkby, K.C.; Taylor, B.V.; Hawrelak, J.A. Consumer Reports of “Keto Flu” Associated With the Ketogenic Diet. Front. Nutr. 2020, 7, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Katsanos, C.S.; Kobayashi, H.; Sheffield-Moore, M.; Aarsland, A.; Wolfe, R.R. A high proportion of leucine is required for optimal stimulation of the rate of muscle protein synthesis by essential amino acids in the elderly. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2006, 291, E381–E387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Crozier, S.J.; Kimball, S.R.; Emmert, S.W.; Anthony, J.C.; Jefferson, L.S. Oral Leucine Administration Stimulates Protein Synthesis in Rat Skeletal Muscle. J. Nutr. 2005, 135, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Koopman, R.; Verdijk, L.B.; Beelen, M.; Gorselink, M.; Kruseman, A.N.; Wagenmakers, A.J.M.; Kuipers, H.; van Loon, L.J.C. Co-ingestion of leucine with protein does not further augment post-exercise muscle protein synthesis rates in elderly men. Br. J. Nutr. 2008, 99, 571–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 19 12629 g001 550
Figure 1. CONSORT Diagram.
Figure 1. CONSORT Diagram.
Ijerph 19 12629 g001
Ijerph 19 12629 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest plot for weight [12,14,27,28,29].
Figure 2. Forest plot for weight [12,14,27,28,29].
Ijerph 19 12629 g002
Ijerph 19 12629 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plot for fat-free mass [12,14,27,29].
Figure 3. Forest plot for fat-free mass [12,14,27,29].
Ijerph 19 12629 g003
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of five randomized controlled clinical trials.
Table 1. Characteristics of five randomized controlled clinical trials.
ReferenceSampleDurationKetogenic Diet InterventionControl InterventionMain
Results		CountryMeasurement
of FFM
Paoli et al. (2021) [27]Body builder males (KD; n = 9, NKD; n = 10)
27.42 ± 10.54. years
BMI; 26.80 ± 1.91 kg/m2		8 weeks45 kcal∙kg-FFM−1∙d−1
Distribution
2.5 g∙kg−1·d−1 PRO,
<50 g∙d−1 CHO, remaining calories FAT; 		45 kcal∙kg-FFM−1∙d−1
Distribution: 2.5 g∙kg−1·d−1 PRO,
55% CHO, remaining calories FAT)		No significant changes in FFM in KD (>0.05). Significant changes in NKD (<0.05).ItalyBIA
Vargas-Molina et al. (2020) [29]Resistance-trained women (n = 21)
27.6 ± 4. years
62.3 ± 7.8 kg
162 ± 6.6 cm		8 weeks40–45 kcal∙kg-FFM−1∙d−1
Distribution: 1.7 g∙kg−1·d−1 PRO,
30–40 g∙kg∙d−1 CHO, remaining calories FAT.		40–45 kcal∙kg-FFM−1∙d−1
Distribution: 1.7 g∙kg−1·d−1 PRO, 1 g∙kg−1·d−1 FAT, remaining calories CHO		No significant changes in FFM in KD (−0.7 ± 1.7 kg; p = 0.202; d = −0.1)SpainDXA
Wilson et al. (2020) [28]Resistance-trained males. (n = 25)
KD: 23.0 ± 4.5 and NKD: 21.3 ± 3.7 years		11 weeksDistribution: 5% CHO
20% PRO
75% FAT; 		Distribution: 55% CHO, 20% PRO, 25% FATFFM increased (2.4% and 4.4%; KD and WD) at week 10. FFM, only increased KD (4.8%) between weeks 10 and 11.United StatesDXA
Ultrasonography
Vargas et al. (2018) [12]Resistance-trained males, (n = 24)
30 ± 4.7 years;
76.7 ± 8.2 kg
174.16 ± 7 cm		8 weeks39 kcal∙kg-FFM−1∙d−1
Distribution: <10% CHO, 20% PRO, 70% FAT		39 kcal∙kg-FFM−1∙d−1
Distribution: 55% CHO, 20% PRO, 25% FAT		FFM in KD (p > 0.05). No increase. NKD (p < 0.05) showed increased FFM.SpainDXA
Kephart et al. (2018) [14]Resistance-trained males/women (n = 12; 9 M, 3 W)
31 ± 2 years;
80.3 ± 5.1 kg		12 weeksNot reported
Ad libitum		Not reported
Ad libitum		FFM no significant changes between groups. Leg FFM decreased in KD (1.4%-p = 0.068),United StatesDXA
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vargas-Molina, S.; Gómez-Urquiza, J.L.; García-Romero, J.; Benítez-Porres, J. Effects of the Ketogenic Diet on Muscle Hypertrophy in Resistance-Trained Men and Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12629. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912629

AMA Style

Vargas-Molina S, Gómez-Urquiza JL, García-Romero J, Benítez-Porres J. Effects of the Ketogenic Diet on Muscle Hypertrophy in Resistance-Trained Men and Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(19):12629. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912629

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vargas-Molina, Salvador, José L. Gómez-Urquiza, Jerónimo García-Romero, and Javier Benítez-Porres. 2022. "Effects of the Ketogenic Diet on Muscle Hypertrophy in Resistance-Trained Men and Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 19: 12629. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912629

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop