New military study: “Remarkable” results among soldiers on a ketogenic diet

A new study has found that US soldiers on a ketogenic diet for 12 weeks lost much more weight, significantly improved their body composition and insulin sensitivity, but suffered no loss in physical performance compared to matched controls.
The study, by researchers at the Ohio State University by Jeff Volek, PhD, is the first to explore the feasibility and impact of a 12-week ketogenic diet on overweight US military personnel.
Military Medicine: Extended ketogenic diet and physical training intervention in military personnel
The study compared 15 overweight participants who chose to be on the ketogenic diet to 14 matched participants who chose to eat a standard mixed diet while undergoing a 12-week physical training regimen. Both diets were calorie unrestricted (ad libitum), meaning the participants did not have to count calories and could eat until satiated.
Those on the ketogenic diet lost an average of 17 pounds (7.5 kg), 5 percent of their overall body fat, 44 percent of their visceral fat, and had their insulin sensitivity improve by 48 per cent. There was no change in the participants on the mixed diet. Training results in physical strength, agility, and endurance in both groups were similar.
The researchers noted:
The most striking result was consistent loss of body mass, fat mass, visceral fat, and enhanced insulin sensitivity in virtually all the ketogenic diet subjects despite no limitations on caloric intake. Physical performance was maintained…. These results are highly relevant considering the obesity problem affecting all branches of the military.
The study notes that the modern soldier needs to maintain optimal health and readiness, but that an estimated two-thirds of US military personnel are currently overweight or obese, which mirrors the obesity epidemic in the general US population. The US military follows the US dietary guidelines when feeding personnel; thus, low-fat, high-carbohydrate foods are standard fare for troops.
The soldiers on the ketogenic diet kept their carbohydrate consumption under 50 grams a day, measured their ketones daily, and all achieved optimal nutritional ketosis for the duration of the study. The mixed diet subjects ate normally. The 12-week trial enabled adequate time for keto-adaptation, the authors noted.
Although neither group counted calories, the ketogenic diet group naturally reduced their caloric intake while eating to satiety.
The most noteworthy response was a spontaneous reduction in energy intake, resulting in a uniformly greater weight loss for all ketogenic diet participants.
The researchers, as well as other commentators, noted the study’s limitations, particularly the fact it was not randomized. The 15 participants on the ketogenic diet had self-selected — chosen — to be on the diet and therefore there may be a selection bias.
The researchers said the non-randomization, however, increased individual compliance to the diet and may improve the translation of the results to real world military circumstances where the ketogenic diet “requires considerable personal commitment” and that enlisted individuals “have the option of which diet to follow.”
Researcher Dr David Ludwig, who was not involved in the study, called the results “impressive” in a tweet:
I haven’t seen this magnitude and consistency of effect on ad libitum low fat diet, even with self-selection. But we’ll need the RCTs.
It must be stressed that along with the non-randomization, it was a small sample size; more high-quality studies are necessary. As well, only two women were enrolled in the ketogenic diet arm, and while they responded in a similar pattern to the men, more investigation is needed to explore any sex differences and individual variation in the response to the diet.
However, the researchers concluded the ketogenic diet is feasible to do among military personnel and “represents a credible strategy to enhance overall health and readiness of military service members who could benefit from weight loss and improved body composition.”


A ketogenic diet for beginners
Guide Here you’ll learn how to eat a keto diet based on real foods. You’ll find visual guides, recipes, meal plans and a simple 2-week get started program, all you need to succeed on keto.
Earlier
Is Weight Watchers ‘getting crushed by keto’?
New research: keto improves liver health markers
Cutting liver fat by cutting added sugars – could it be that simple?
Eventually it is excellent studies like this that may put an end to the decades of bad dietary advice we have been getting from out own government, that has been killing us.
If the military adopt this, then the police force, then the prisons, then the schools, then the medical community as the weight of evidence builds... Kind of an exciting potential tipping point.
The military must spend a fortune on obesity-related issues so it would be an incentive for change.
Clever Jeff Volek.
patricia
After being a carb and sugar addict for most of my life, if I could not get to a carb/sugar food real soon during the day I was in real bad shape and worsened by the sleepiness and foggy-thinking in the afternoons after eating the carbs.
As many in the Keto community know, you gain an incredible freedom from this horrible cycle when you train your body to use your fat reserves for energy.
If a conflict broke out - I think the benefits of not needing to eat for long periods of time while remaining energetic and clear thinking for someone in the military is clear - it could also be life saving in extreme situations.
It doesn’t surprise me their physical performance levels were maintained. I do keto plus intermittant fasting, along with 3 day/week strength training. I continue to lose weight, while still increasing strength in all 3 lifts (squat, bench press, and deadlift)
All research combined, genes account for only a few percentage of obesity. There are many other factors. Diet definitely is important. Gary Taubes, in Why We Get Fat, makes a compelling argument about how the industrialized diet simultaneously leads to obesity and malnourishment, whether food is abundant or not, whether the population is wealthier or not.
Research has shown that in many societies where the poor are stunted from malnutrition the same poor are also experiencing rising rates of obesity. Anyone who understands the differences between a high-carb and a low-carb diet would have no difficulty in understanding why this happens. The cheapest foods are high-carb empty calories, especially since high-yield grain farming is heavily subsidized by governments.
Furthermore, besides dietary-related metabolic changes, stress and toxins have a major impact on all aspects of health, including obesity. Stress shifts the body into fat-building mode as an evolutionary response for potential hard times. And toxins are stored in the fat, making it difficult for those with high levels of toxins to lose fat because the body can't handle eliminating the toxins. In the Biosphere 2, the participants were forced on a restricted diet and lost weight, which elevated the toxins in their blood and it remained elevated for a year before their body could fully eliminate them.
Another factor is epigenetics. If and how a gene expresses is entirely determined by epigenetics. And we've proven how this can be passed on for multiple generations. The grandchildren of famine victims have increased obesity rates. The epigenetics gets set a particular way and might remain until something switches it in a new direction. We barely understand this.
Also, larger environmental factors such as inequality can cause all kinds of problems, especially health-related, both physical and mental. Obesity does go up as inequality goes up. This has to do with growing divisions in a high inequality society that causes stress, not only for the poor but also for the rich. Everyone gets stressed out and continuous is not normal for humans. Long-term stress, research shows, can cause more trauma than a single traumatic event.
Identically Different
by Tim Spector
“Until three years ago I was one of the many scientists who took the gene-centric view of the universe for granted. I had spent the last 17 years producing hundreds of twin studies trying to convince a sceptical public and scientific world that virtually every trait and disease had a major genetic influence. My colleagues and I around the world were largely successful in this, and the prospect of finding the genes underlying most diseases looked increasingly certain. But I had a nagging doubt that we were missing something. [ . . . ]
“However, despite the extensive list of successes, a few signs were emerging that the paradigm was wrong. Most of the gene discoveries for common diseases turned out to be interesting in terms of biology, but the more we discovered the less useful each new gene became in accounting for the disease, since each gene is of tiny individual effect. For example, the 30 or so genes discovered for obesity, even when combined, account for only 2 per cent of the disease.
“This was frustrating to all of us working in the field, as it meant that each common disease was contolled not by one gene but by hundreds or even thousands of genes. This would require teams from many countries to combine forces and perform studies of tens, and sometimes hundreds of thousands, of subjects in order to find these tiny effects. Another consequence was that for common diseases (unlike rare monogenic diseases) these gene tests were pretty useless for prediction [ . . . ]
“While hundreds of recent gene discoveries have given us great insights into new disease mechanisms and possible drug targets, the common genes found to date usually account only for less than 5 per cent of the genetic influence. Exactly where the missing 95 per cent comes from is a mystery that is perplexing the field. Most scientists agree that we simply aren’t smart enough to realize what we don’t know. [ . . . ]
“There are few if any examples of environmental factors without a genetic component, and conversely genes don’t work alone and are usually dependent on the cells they live in and their environments. So in a world where hundreds of genes are working together to influence a trait or disease, the old distinction between nature and nurture is simply no longer relevant.”
https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/identically-diff...
https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/plowing-the-furr...
https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/society-precario...
https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/facing-shared-tr...
https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2017/11/27/trauma-embodied-...
https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2019/03/18/stress-and-shitt...
https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2017/06/26/on-conflict-and-...
https://theconversation.com/its-poverty-not-individual-choice-that-is...
https://lanekenworthy.net/2012/06/10/is-rising-obesity-a-product-of-i...
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-04-income-inequality-impacts-obes...
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1164256/icode/