What Is the Best Diet for Fat Loss? Keto, Fasting, Low-Fat and More

Keto, intermittent fasting, low-fat diets, Mediterranean-style eating and most other established approaches can all produce body-fat loss. When calorie intake and protein are genuinely comparable, however, no diet has shown a large and dependable physiological advantage for removing stored body fat.

That does not make the choice of diet irrelevant. Different approaches change what people eat, how often they eat and how easy it is to control portions. One structure may reduce someone’s hunger or fit neatly around work. Another may provide greater flexibility, make social meals easier or better support training. These are meaningful advantages, but they mainly affect how successfully the diet controls calorie intake rather than creating a separate fat-loss mechanism.

The short answer: body-fat loss requires a sustained energy deficit. Diets are different systems for creating and maintaining that deficit. The most useful option is one that controls calories, provides adequate protein and nutrition, supports training, and can develop into a realistic way of eating at maintenance.

Key points

• Body fat decreases when stored fat use exceeds fat storage over time, which requires the body to operate in an energy deficit.
• When calories and protein are closely matched, low-carbohydrate, ketogenic and lower-fat diets generally produce similar average fat loss. Small differences occur, but there is no consistent large advantage for one macronutrient split.
• Diet studies can produce different results when one group achieves a larger calorie deficit, even if both groups were prescribed the same deficit.
• Insulin affects fuel storage and use after a meal, but lowering insulin does not allow body fat to disappear independently of energy balance.
• Keto increases fat oxidation partly because more fat is eaten and less carbohydrate is available. Burning more fat is not automatically the same as losing more stored body fat.
• Intermittent fasting and time-restricted eating are ways of organising when food is eaten. They do not inherently produce greater fat loss when calorie intake is comparable. Diet breaks divide a longer diet into deficit and planned maintenance phases. They do not provide a dependable metabolic advantage, but may make dieting easier to manage for some people.
• Protein can help retain lean mass, carbohydrate can support demanding training, and dietary fat provides essential fatty acids and supports normal nutrition. These roles matter even when fat loss is similar.
• The calorie deficit is temporary. The eating structure needs a realistic path into long-term weight maintenance.

What actually causes body-fat loss?

Most body fat is stored inside fat cells as triglycerides. When the body needs more energy than it is receiving from food, hormones and enzymes help release those triglycerides as fatty acids and glycerol. The fatty acids can then be transported to tissues and oxidised for energy. If more stored fat is released and used than is returned to fat stores over time, body-fat mass decreases [1].

This process does not happen only while exercising or while insulin is low. Fat is continually being stored and released across the day. After meals, storage tends to rise. Between meals, overnight and during activity, stored fuel use tends to rise. The important outcome is the net balance across days and weeks.

A diet can create the required energy gap in many ways:

• smaller portions;
• fewer eating occasions;
• less energy-dense food;
• removing particular food groups;
• tracking calories;
• using pre-planned meals;
• limiting the hours in which food is eaten;
• or combining several of these methods.

This is why diets with very different rules can all work. Keto removes most carbohydrate-rich foods. A low-fat diet reduces oils, butter and other high-fat foods. Time-restricted eating removes some eating opportunities. A Mediterranean-style diet may replace highly processed foods with vegetables, legumes, fruit, whole grains and minimally processed meals. The methods differ, but they only produce body-fat loss when the overall pattern creates an energy deficit.

Food choice still matters, but for different reasons

Saying that calories drive fat loss does not mean all foods affect the body or eating behaviour in the same way.

Protein is particularly relevant during a deficit because it can help retain lean tissue, especially when combined with resistance training [33-37]. Carbohydrate can support higher-volume resistance training, repeated hard efforts and sessions performed with low glycogen availability [38,39]. Dietary fat supplies essential fatty acids, forms part of cell membranes and assists with the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins [40]. Fibre, food variety and micronutrient intake also matter for health and the long-term quality of the diet.

Food form and processing can change how much someone chooses to eat. In a controlled inpatient crossover trial, 20 adults were given either an ultra-processed or minimally processed diet for two weeks before switching to the other diet. The meals presented to them were designed to be similar in calories, energy density, macronutrients, sugar, sodium and fibre, but participants were allowed to eat as much or as little as they wanted. They consumed about 508 calories more per day during the ultra-processed phase and gained weight, while losing weight during the minimally processed phase [4].

The foods did not create extra body fat from the same calorie intake. People ate more calories when the available diet was ultra-processed. Eating rate was faster during that phase, and later analyses suggest that the combination of eating rate, energy density, texture and palatability may help explain the higher intake. Processing level alone does not perfectly predict how easy every individual food will be to overeat, but the study shows how the food environment can change achieved calorie intake [4,5].

Food choice therefore matters because it can influence fullness, eating rate, nutrient intake, training performance, lean-mass retention and how easily calories are controlled. It does not replace the energy deficit as the underlying requirement for fat loss.

Insulin, mixed meals and why lower insulin is not a fat-loss shortcut

Insulin is an essential hormone, not an enemy of fat loss. After food is eaten, rising glucose and amino acids stimulate insulin release. Insulin helps move glucose and amino acids into tissues, supports glycogen storage, reduces glucose production by the liver and suppresses the release of stored fat while nutrients from the meal are available.

That last effect is sometimes used to argue that carbohydrate prevents fat loss. The explanation stops too early. Suppressing fat release for several hours after a meal does not determine the net change in fat stores across the day. As nutrients from the meal are used and insulin falls, stored fuel becomes more available again. A person eating carbohydrate can still lose body fat if total intake remains below expenditure over time.

Real meals also make the insulin argument less straightforward than comparisons of carbohydrate and fat in isolation. Most meals contain some combination of carbohydrate, protein, fat and fibre. Protein can stimulate insulin even when it reduces the accompanying rise in blood glucose. Fat, fibre, food structure and meal size can slow digestion or change gastric emptying. A systematic review of isocaloric mixed-meal trials found that replacing some carbohydrate with fat modestly reduced the average post-meal glucose and insulin responses, but increased the triglyceride response [6]. This is a change in the handling of one meal, not evidence of greater long-term fat loss.

In another controlled trial, rice, pasta or mashed potato produced a lower glucose response when eaten with salmon, vegetables and sauce than when the same carbohydrate food was eaten alone. At the same time, the mixed meals produced a higher relative insulin response [7]. Glucose and insulin therefore do not always move in parallel, and the response to a single food does not fully predict the response to an ordinary meal.

Across a normal day, insulin rises and falls repeatedly in response to mixed meals. The pattern is affected by total carbohydrate, protein, fat, fibre, portion size, time of day, physical activity and the person’s insulin sensitivity. Trying to keep every insulin rise as small as possible is neither necessary nor a realistic measure of whether body fat is being lost.

Controlled metabolic-ward studies demonstrate the difference between changing fuel use and changing stored body fat. In one six-day comparison, carbohydrate restriction lowered insulin and increased fat oxidation, but fat restriction produced more calculated body-fat loss [2]. In another study, switching men to an isocaloric ketogenic diet lowered insulin and increased fat oxidation without accelerating body-fat loss [3]. These studies were small and short, so they do not tell us which diet is easiest to follow for a year. They do show that lower insulin and greater fat oxidation should not be treated as proof of a calorie-independent fat-loss advantage.

How to interpret research comparing diets

Diet studies often appear to disagree because they are answering different questions. Before deciding that one diet outperformed another, it is necessary to ask whether calorie and protein intake were genuinely comparable and how tightly the diets were controlled.

Metabolic-ward and supplied-food studies

In a metabolic-ward study, participants live in a research facility and investigators provide and measure their food. In supplied-food studies, participants may live normally while some or all meals are provided. These designs provide the strongest control over calorie and macronutrient intake.

They are useful for testing whether a diet has an independent physiological effect. Their limitations are cost, small samples and relatively short study periods. They cannot show how easy the same diet will be to maintain during work, family meals, travel and normal social life.

Free-living prescribed diets

In free-living trials, participants receive calorie targets, food rules, meal plans or counselling but choose and prepare much of their food. These studies are more realistic, but a calorie prescription is not proof of achieved intake.

Two groups can be prescribed the same weekly deficit while one follows it more closely. Food records are useful but imprecise, and the people who complete them know which diet they have been assigned. If one group loses more weight, the difference may reflect a larger achieved calorie deficit rather than a special property of the diet.

Ad-libitum diets

Ad libitum means participants are allowed to eat as much as they want while following the assigned food rules. These studies test whether the structure of a diet helps people spontaneously eat less.

If one ad-libitum diet produces greater fat loss because participants consume fewer calories, that is a valuable practical result. It means the diet worked well as a calorie-control system for that group. It does not show that the same calories produced different amounts of fat loss.

Prescribed calories are not achieved calories

This distinction explains many apparently conflicting results. When calories and protein are tightly matched, differences in average fat loss tend to be small. When intake is not matched, larger differences can appear because the diets alter hunger, food choices, portions and adherence.

Protein must also be considered. If a low-carbohydrate group eats substantially more protein than a lower-fat group, the trial is not isolating carbohydrate from fat. Protein may affect fullness, lean-mass retention and the energy cost of digestion. Likewise, different levels of resistance training, counselling, supplied meals and contact with researchers can affect the result.

This produces two conclusions that are both true:

• Calories are the primary driver of body-fat loss.
• A particular diet may help an individual control those calories more successfully.

Weight loss is not always fat loss

Scale weight includes body fat, muscle and other lean tissue, glycogen, water, food inside the digestive system and changes in sodium balance. A quick change on the scale is therefore not automatically a quick change in body fat.

Glycogen and its associated water

Glycogen is the stored form of carbohydrate. The liver commonly holds about 80 to 100 grams, while skeletal muscle may hold roughly 300 to 700 grams depending on body size, muscle mass, diet and training status [9]. Liver glycogen helps maintain blood glucose between meals. Muscle glycogen is mainly used by the muscle in which it is stored.

Each gram of muscle glycogen is commonly stored with at least about three grams of water, although the exact relationship varies with hydration and the circumstances in which it is measured [8,9]. This means changes in carbohydrate intake can move scale weight without equivalent changes in body fat.

Consider an illustrative 300-gram change in glycogen:

• 300 grams of glycogen;
• approximately 900 grams of associated water at a 1:3 ratio;
• approximately 1.2 kilograms of combined scale weight.

A 500-gram change would represent about 2 kilograms when glycogen and three times its weight in water are combined. These calculations illustrate the possible size of the shift, not a prediction that everyone starting a low-carbohydrate diet will lose that exact amount. Muscle mass, recent training, starting carbohydrate intake, sodium, hydration and digestive contents all affect the result.

When carbohydrate intake falls sharply, liver glycogen and some muscle glycogen can decline, particularly when training continues. Water is lost with it, so weight may drop quickly during the first week or two. When carbohydrate intake rises again, glycogen and water are restored and some scale weight returns. That regain is not automatically body-fat regain.

Body-composition measurements also need caution. DXA and bioelectrical impedance estimate body compartments rather than directly weighing skeletal muscle. Changes in glycogen and hydration can alter the estimate of lean mass.

When comparing two diets, useful questions include:

• How much measured fat mass changed, rather than only total body weight?
• What happened to waist circumference and the longer-term weight trend?
• Were calories and protein actually comparable?
• Did the groups perform similar resistance training?
• How was body composition measured?
• Was the study long enough for early glycogen, water and digestive changes to become less influential?
• These questions help determine whether one diet produced more fat loss or simply a different short-term movement on the scale.

Low-carbohydrate and ketogenic diets compared with low-fat diets

What tightly controlled research suggests

When calories and protein are closely controlled, the strongest evidence does not show a large, reliable fat-loss advantage for low-carbohydrate or ketogenic diets [1-3]. This does not mean every comparison produces mathematically identical results. It means the differences are generally too small or inconsistent to support the claim that carbohydrate restriction is physiologically necessary for fat loss.

A 2026 meta-analysis of 18 broadly energy-matched trials reported small average effects favouring lower-carbohydrate diets for body weight and fat mass [10]. The result deserves acknowledgement, but its design does not establish a clear calorie-independent effect. Trials were allowed to differ by as much as 200 calories per day or 5% of energy and were still classified as energy matched. Protein was not consistently matched, supplied-food and free-living studies were combined, and only seven trials contributed fat-mass data. Small differences in achieved energy intake, protein, adherence or measurement could therefore contribute to the pooled effect.

The fair conclusion is not that lower-carbohydrate diets can never produce slightly greater average results. It is that the current evidence does not demonstrate a large, dependable advantage produced by carbohydrate restriction itself.

What happens in ordinary life

Low-carbohydrate diets can work very well in free-living settings. Removing bread, cereals, sweets and other carbohydrate-rich foods may simplify decisions, remove frequently overeaten foods or increase protein intake. Some people report better appetite control. Others find the restrictions difficult, miss preferred foods or struggle to support their training.

The 12-month DIETFITS trial assigned 609 adults to a healthy lower-fat or healthy lower-carbohydrate diet without a fixed calorie target. Average weight loss was 5.3 kilograms in the lower-fat group and 6.0 kilograms in the lower-carbohydrate group. The 0.7-kilogram difference was not statistically clear, and individual responses varied widely within both groups [11]. Both approaches worked for some people. Because calories and protein were not matched and intake was self-reported, the trial does not demonstrate a unique metabolic advantage for either diet.

The two-year DIRECT trial compared calorie-restricted low-fat and Mediterranean diets with an ad-libitum low-carbohydrate diet. Average weight losses were 2.9, 4.4 and 4.7 kilograms respectively [12]. The low-carbohydrate programme performed well, but it was not a clean calorie-for-calorie test. That group was not given the same calorie prescription and achieved the highest protein intake. The result represents the entire programme, including its food rules, protein intake, counselling and adherence.

Reviews of popular named diets reach a similar conclusion. Several approaches produce useful short-term losses, while average differences between diets are usually modest and often become smaller over time [13,14]. One reason is that participants frequently move away from the assigned targets as the trial continues, so the actual difference between diets narrows. Contact and adherence can also decline, reducing the calorie deficit in both groups. As achieved intake becomes more similar, the weight-loss curves tend to move closer together. The named diet mainly organises calorie intake; it does not replace it.

Does keto burn more body fat?

Keto increases fat oxidation, meaning that a greater amount of fat is being used as fuel. Much of that extra fat being burned comes from the diet because carbohydrate has been replaced with a much larger intake of dietary fat.

The body can therefore burn more total fat without removing more fat from its own stores. Stored body fat decreases only when total fat use over time exceeds the fat being eaten and stored. This is why increased fat oxidation can occur on keto without a corresponding increase in body-fat loss when calories are matched [2,3].

Keto may suit someone who enjoys the permitted foods, experiences good appetite control and accepts the restrictions. It may be a poor fit for someone who values fruit, grains and legumes, finds rigid rules socially difficult or performs a large amount of glycogen-demanding training. Fibre, food variety and micronutrient intake require more deliberate attention as carbohydrate intake becomes more restrictive.

Lower-fat, higher-carbohydrate diets

A lower-fat approach reduces foods that contribute a large number of calories in small portions, such as oils, butter, cream, pastries and some takeaway foods. When meals are built around vegetables, fruit, legumes, whole grains and leaner protein sources, this can provide a relatively high food volume for the available calories.

Higher carbohydrate intake can also make it easier to support training volume and replenish glycogen. Carbohydrate does not prevent fat loss when total energy intake remains below expenditure.

The disadvantages depend on how far fat is reduced and which foods replace it. A diet built around refined low-fat products can still be easy to overeat. An unnecessarily low fat intake may reduce enjoyment, remove useful foods such as nuts, avocado, eggs and olive oil, and make essential-fat and micronutrient targets harder to meet.

Lower-fat diets are not inherently better or worse for fat loss. Like lower-carbohydrate diets, they work when the complete eating pattern creates a calorie deficit that the person can maintain.

Intermittent fasting is a category, not one diet

Intermittent fasting describes several eating patterns that restrict when, or on which days, food is eaten. Common forms include:

• time-restricted eating, such as using an eight-hour daily eating window;
• alternate-day fasting;
• modified alternate-day fasting, in which a small amount of food is allowed on fasting days;
• 5:2 fasting, with two low-intake days each week;
• and 4:3 fasting, with three substantially restricted days each week.

These are different interventions. Eating between 10 am and 6 pm every day is not the same dietary experience as eating approximately 20% of normal intake on three non-consecutive days each week.

Across trials, intermittent and continuous restriction generally produce similar average weight and fat loss when the achieved energy restriction is similar [15,16]. Fasting does not appear to create an independent fat-loss pathway, but the schedule may still make calorie control easier for a particular person.

Why fasting sometimes produces more weight loss

A 2025 trial compared 4:3 intermittent fasting with daily calorie restriction over 12 months. Both groups received intensive behavioural support and were prescribed the same average weekly deficit. The fasting group lost modestly more weight [17].

The result makes sense once prescribed and achieved intake are separated. Objective energy-expenditure data indicated that the fasting group achieved a larger actual energy restriction. In other words, fasting worked better for this group because its weekly structure helped participants create a larger calorie deficit in practice.

That is a genuine advantage of the method within this trial. It is not evidence that fasting removed more body fat from the same energy intake.

Fasting may reduce the number of food decisions, remove habitual snacking or allow larger meals within the available calories. It may be less suitable for someone who experiences excessive hunger, compensatory eating or irritability, or who finds that long fasting periods interfere with training, protein distribution, family meals or social life.

Time-restricted eating

Time-restricted eating limits food intake to a consistent daily window. It is one form of intermittent fasting, but it changes the daily schedule rather than creating full or very-low-intake days.

The approach can reduce calories by removing eating opportunities. Someone who usually eats across 15 hours, including late-night snacks, may naturally consume less when food is limited to an eight-hour window.

When a time window is added to an existing calorie target, however, it does not consistently produce additional fat loss. In a 12-month trial, adding an 8 am to 4 pm eating window to calorie restriction did not produce meaningfully greater weight loss than calorie restriction alone [18]. Another 12-month trial found similar weight loss from an eight-hour window without calorie counting and from conventional calorie restriction [19].

Time-restricted eating is therefore a scheduling tool. It may work well for someone who prefers fewer, larger meals or wants a firm boundary around evening eating. It may fit poorly with shift work, early and late training sessions, family meals or the need to distribute protein across several meals.

Diet breaks

A diet break is a planned period at approximately maintenance calories during a longer fat-loss phase. It is not a cheat week, an uncontrolled period of eating or a deliberate calorie surplus.

In research, diet breaks have usually been implemented by increasing intake from the dieting target to estimated weight-maintenance needs while keeping the diet broadly structured. Examples include one week at maintenance, two-week maintenance blocks between two-week deficit blocks, or several shorter maintenance periods across a longer intervention [20,22-24]. Protein is generally kept adequate, while much of the calorie increase may come from carbohydrate.

Estimated maintenance is not perfectly measurable, so a small weight change can occur. A quick increase on the scale during a higher-carbohydrate break may also reflect restored glycogen, water and digestive contents rather than body-fat gain.

What metabolic adaptation means

Energy expenditure normally falls during weight loss for several reasons. A smaller body costs less energy to maintain and move. Eating less food also reduces the energy used in digestion. Some people move less, either consciously or unconsciously, and training output may decline.

Metabolic adaptation refers more specifically to a reduction in energy expenditure beyond what would be predicted from the measured changes in body size and composition. For example, if losing weight would be expected to reduce someone’s expenditure by 100 calories per day, but measured expenditure falls by 180 calories, the additional 80 calories may be described as adaptive thermogenesis.

Possible contributors include changes in leptin and thyroid hormones, lower sympathetic nervous-system activity, greater metabolic efficiency and changes in spontaneous physical activity. The size of the effect varies considerably. A systematic review found evidence of adaptation in many studies, but better-designed studies often reported smaller or non-significant effects, particularly after a period of weight stabilisation [21]. Metabolic adaptation can reduce the size of an intended deficit, but it does not stop the rules of energy balance.

Do diet breaks prevent metabolic adaptation?

Diet breaks are sometimes promoted as a way to reset metabolism. The evidence does not support that strong claim. They may reduce some of the metabolic adaptation that occurs during weight loss, but they have not been shown to prevent it completely or reliably produce greater fat loss.

A 2025 meta-analysis of 12 randomised trials found similar reductions in body weight and fat mass when diets containing planned breaks were compared with continuous calorie restriction. Resting metabolic rate declined slightly less, on average, with diet breaks. However, the studies used different populations and diet-break protocols, so the practical importance of this difference remains uncertain [20].

The MATADOR trial compared 16 consecutive weeks of calorie restriction with the same 16 weeks of restriction divided into two-week blocks, separated by two weeks at maintenance calories. Both groups were prescribed approximately 33% below their estimated maintenance needs during the restriction weeks. Their prescribed deficits were recalculated every four restriction weeks and did not differ significantly between groups. The intermittent group therefore received a similar prescribed amount of calorie restriction, but completed it over 30 calendar weeks rather than 16 [22].

Among the 36 participants who completed the protocol, the intermittent group lost an average of 14.1 kilograms, compared with 9.1 kilograms in the continuous group. Fat loss averaged 12.3 kilograms and 8.0 kilograms, respectively. The intermittent group therefore achieved a larger cumulative energy deficit, despite the groups receiving similar calorie prescriptions during their 16 restriction weeks.

The study did not establish exactly why this happened. Resting energy expenditure decreased in both groups. The difference in the raw reductions was small and not statistically significant. After accounting for changes in fat mass and fat-free mass, however, the intermittent group experienced a smaller reduction than would have been expected from its weight loss. This suggests that the maintenance periods may have reduced some adaptive thermogenesis [22].

That measured difference in resting expenditure does not fully explain the large difference in fat loss. The researchers did not comprehensively measure total daily energy expenditure, physical activity or the thermic effect of food. Although food was provided, the food diaries were not analysed to confirm the amount each participant actually consumed. Differences in adherence or other parts of energy expenditure therefore cannot be ruled out.

The appropriate conclusion is not that diet breaks created fat loss independently of calories. The intermittent group must have maintained a larger achieved energy deficit through some combination of energy intake and expenditure. The trial suggests that this particular two-weeks-in-a-deficit, two-weeks-at-maintenance structure may have reduced some of the compensation that normally makes an intended deficit smaller over time. It does not prove that diet breaks prevent metabolic adaptation or reliably produce greater fat loss in other populations or with other break schedules.

A separate trial in 38 resistance-trained women compared six continuous weeks of a 25% calorie deficit with the same six weeks of restriction interrupted by two one-week periods at maintenance calories. The diet-break group therefore took eight calendar weeks to complete the same six weeks of calorie restriction. Both groups experienced similar changes in body weight, fat mass, fat-free mass and resting metabolic rate. In this population, the diet breaks did not improve the efficiency of fat loss or prevent the reduction in resting metabolic rate [23].

Another study measured 26 resistance-trained athletes before and after a one-week diet break at maintenance calories. During the break, calories were increased mainly through carbohydrate. Hunger and irritability decreased, feelings of fullness and alertness improved, and leg-muscle endurance increased. Strength and fat mass did not change. Body weight, fat-free mass and resting energy expenditure increased slightly, but these acute changes may partly reflect increased glycogen, its associated water and the higher thermic effect of consuming more food. Because this comparison did not include a separate control group, it cannot demonstrate that the break caused a lasting improvement in metabolism [24].

Overall, diet breaks are not required for successful fat loss and should not be treated as a metabolic reset. Their clearest potential benefit is practical. A planned period at maintenance calories may temporarily reduce hunger and diet fatigue, support demanding training, accommodate social events or give someone practice managing their weight without remaining in a deficit.

The main disadvantage is that diet breaks extend the total time required to complete a fat-loss phase. They can also become unplanned periods of unrestricted eating if maintenance calories and the purpose of the break are not clearly defined. Some people may benefit from the psychological relief, while others may find it easier to complete a shorter, continuous dieting phase.

Mediterranean-style eating

A Mediterranean-style diet generally emphasises vegetables, legumes, fruit, whole grains, fish, olive oil, nuts and minimally processed meals. It can provide good food variety, fibre and unsaturated fats without requiring one rigid macronutrient split.

It can produce useful fat loss, but not because the label creates a unique metabolic pathway. A calorie deficit is still required. Olive oil and nuts are nutritious, for example, but they are also energy dense and can make a deficit difficult when portions are not considered.

A meta-analysis of randomised trials found greater weight reduction from Mediterranean interventions than control diets on average. The effects were larger when the intervention also included calorie restriction, physical activity or longer follow-up [25]. This matters because several components changed together. The result supports the overall programme, not a calorie-independent effect of Mediterranean foods.

In DIRECT, the calorie-restricted Mediterranean group lost more weight than the calorie-restricted low-fat group but slightly less than the ad-libitum low-carbohydrate group [12]. In a separate energy-restricted trial involving postmenopausal women, Mediterranean and Central-European patterns produced similar reductions in weight and visceral fat, while stronger adherence predicted greater loss [26].

Mediterranean-style eating is therefore a flexible and generally nutritious long-term framework. Its fat-loss value is most plausibly explained by food quality, portion control, satiety and adherence. It may suit someone who wants variety and an eating pattern that can move naturally into maintenance. It still requires attention to calories, protein and portions.

Plant-based diets

Plant-based eating can describe anything from a plant-focused omnivorous diet to a fully vegan diet. The label does not reveal the diet’s calories, protein or food quality.

Minimally processed plant foods can increase fibre and food volume while reducing energy density. This may help some people feel satisfied on fewer calories. In a multicentre workplace trial, a low-fat vegan programme produced greater weight loss than a usual-diet control [27]. The intervention also included clear food rules, weekly support and better access to suitable meals, so the result reflects the complete programme rather than the removal of animal foods alone.

A plant-based diet is not automatically low in calories or nutritionally complete. Highly processed plant foods can still be easy to overeat. Fully vegan diets require a reliable source of vitamin B12 and deliberate attention to protein, iron, calcium, iodine and omega-3 fats.

Plant-based eating can be a useful long-term structure for someone who prefers it and plans it well. Its fat-loss effect still depends on the calorie deficit it creates.

Paleo-style diets

Paleo-style diets generally remove grains, legumes and dairy while emphasising meat, fish, eggs, vegetables, fruit and nuts. These rules may reduce calorie intake by removing many highly processed foods and simplifying decisions.

They also remove nutritious foods that many people tolerate well, and the long-term comparative evidence is less extensive than it is for lower-carbohydrate, lower-fat or Mediterranean diets.

In a two-year trial involving postmenopausal women, a Paleo-style diet produced a larger early reduction in fat mass than the comparison diet, but the difference was no longer clear at 24 months [28]. Research in the same population found a greater risk of iodine deficiency when dairy foods and iodised salt were excluded [29].

Paleo can produce fat loss, but there is no clear evidence that avoiding grains, legumes or dairy provides an independent advantage. Its likely effect comes from the entire food pattern and the resulting change in calorie intake.

Low-GI and low-GL diets

The glycaemic index, or GI, measures how much a fixed amount of available carbohydrate from a food raises blood glucose under standardised conditions. The usual method tests the food after an overnight fast and compares the glucose response with a reference food. This makes GI useful for comparing carbohydrate foods, but it does not recreate every ordinary eating situation [31].

Glycaemic load, or GL, adds the amount of carbohydrate in the serving:

• Glycaemic load = GI x grams of available carbohydrate in the serving / 100
• This gives more context because both carbohydrate quality and quantity affect the glucose response.

GI does not become meaningless when food is eaten as part of a meal, but it becomes only one part of the prediction. Protein, fat, fibre, acidity, cooking, processing, portion size, meal sequence and gastric emptying can all alter the response. In the mixed-meal trial described earlier, adding salmon, vegetables and sauce lowered the glucose response to the carbohydrate foods but increased the relative insulin response [7]. A lower glucose response therefore does not always mean a lower insulin response.

Eating several mixed meals across a day adds further complexity. Each meal creates a new response, while the overall pattern is influenced by total carbohydrate, energy intake, activity and insulin sensitivity. Dietary GI or GL can describe one characteristic of the diet, but neither is a direct measure of someone’s total daily insulin exposure.

For fat loss, a 2023 Cochrane review found little to no difference in the main weight outcomes between lower-GI or lower-GL diets and comparison diets in people with overweight or obesity [30]. Lower-GI eating may still help some people choose intact, fibre-rich carbohydrate foods, manage hunger or improve glucose control. In people with diabetes, systematic-review evidence suggests modest improvements in glycaemic control from lower-GI or lower-GL patterns [32]. That clinical use should not be converted into the claim that smaller glucose or insulin rises cause greater body-fat loss from the same calories.

Protein, carbohydrate and fat have different practical roles

No diet label has a monopoly on fat loss, but macronutrient allocation still affects nutrition, body composition and training.

Protein and lean-mass retention

Protein has a larger thermic effect than carbohydrate or fat, but that is not the main reason to emphasise it here. Its more important role during a deficit is supporting the retention of lean tissue.

Systematic reviews and controlled trials generally show that protein intakes above the basic recommended allowance can reduce lean-mass loss during calorie restriction, particularly when resistance training is included [33-37]. The amount required varies with body size, leanness, training status and the size of the deficit.

Protein does not create a separate fat-loss mechanism. It can change fullness and the composition of the weight lost. Two diets producing the same change on the scale may not be equally useful if one results in greater loss of lean tissue.

Carbohydrate and training performance

Carbohydrate is not required for body-fat loss, but it is useful training fuel.

A systematic review found that carbohydrate often makes little difference to strength performance during a fed, moderate-volume session. Benefits become more likely during higher-volume training, after fasting or glycogen depletion, or when demanding sessions occur close together [38]. A separate meta-analysis found that acute carbohydrate intake improved total resistance-training volume on average, particularly in longer sessions and after an eight-hour or longer fast [39].

Someone performing a moderate amount of strength work may train well on lower carbohydrate. Someone completing many hard sets, repeated sprint work or two demanding sessions in a day may benefit more from greater carbohydrate availability.

Carbohydrate is therefore neither essential for fat loss nor an obstacle to it. It can be allocated according to food preference and training demand while total calories remain controlled.

Dietary fat, hormones and minimum intake

Dietary fat has several established roles. It provides energy, supplies the essential fatty acids that the body cannot make, contributes to cell membranes and signalling, and assists with the absorption of vitamins A, D, E and K [40].

Cholesterol is used by the body to make steroid hormones such as testosterone and oestrogen. This is sometimes simplified into the claim that eating more fat creates more hormones. The body can manufacture cholesterol, and dietary fat is not converted directly into a predictable increase in testosterone. Hormone regulation is affected by total energy availability, body fat, sleep, training stress, health status and many other factors.

A 2021 meta-analysis of six intervention studies involving 206 men reported modestly lower total and free testosterone during lower-fat diets [41]. The evidence base was small and the studies differed in fat type, carbohydrate and fibre. A broader 2025 meta-analysis of 11 randomised trials involving 888 adults found no statistically clear differences in testosterone, oestrogen, progesterone or several other sex hormones between lower-fat and higher-fat diets. The authors rated the evidence as low certainty [42].

The most accurate conclusion is that unnecessarily low fat intake may contribute to hormonal problems in some circumstances, but normal differences within an adequate range have not consistently been shown to improve sex hormones. In physique athletes, very low energy availability, aggressive dieting and extremely low body-fat levels may be more important causes of reproductive and endocrine disruption than fat percentage alone [43]. Raising fat while someone remains severely under-fuelled may not correct the underlying problem.

For healthy Australian adults, the accepted macronutrient distribution range is 20% to 35% of total energy from fat [40]. This is a general health-planning range, not a proven testosterone-optimisation zone. At 2,000 calories, it represents approximately 44 to 78 grams of fat. At 2,500 calories, it represents approximately 56 to 97 grams.

There is no established point at which all additional physiological benefit suddenly stops. The upper end of 35% is not a toxicity threshold, and some healthy dietary patterns contain more. However, once total fat and essential fatty-acid needs are covered, eating progressively more fat has not been shown to keep increasing testosterone, muscle retention or fat loss. Higher fat intake then becomes mainly a question of food preference, fullness and the rest of the diet. It can also leave less room for carbohydrate or protein and make calorie control harder because fat provides nine calories per gram.

Fat quality matters as well as quantity. A diet high in unsaturated fats from foods such as olive oil, nuts, seeds, avocado and fish is not equivalent to one dominated by saturated and trans fats.

A diet must work after the fat-loss phase

Losing weight and maintaining that loss are related but different problems. The best short-term diet is not automatically the best long-term eating system.

This does not mean remaining in a calorie deficit forever. Once the intended fat loss has been achieved, calories can rise towards the amount required to maintain the new body weight. What needs to continue is enough of the underlying structure to keep average intake appropriate: meal patterns, portions, food availability, activity and some way of noticing gradual regain.

How common is weight regain?

Regain after lifestyle-based weight loss is common, but there is no single honest percentage showing that a fixed number of diets fail. Studies use different definitions of success, include different populations and follow people for different lengths of time.

A systematic review of 249 behavioural weight-management studies found substantial variation but a consistent general pattern of regain after active programmes ended. Greater initial losses still produced a weight advantage for several years, but the average advantage was projected to disappear at about five years after the programme ended [44].

An earlier meta-analysis of 29 US studies found that participants retained approximately 23% of their initial loss after five years. On average, they had regained roughly three-quarters of the lost weight but still remained more than 3 kilograms below baseline [45]. These averages do not mean every participant followed the same path. Some maintained large losses, some regained part of the weight and some returned to or exceeded baseline.

It is therefore accurate to say that substantial regain is common. It is not accurate to claim that nearly everyone inevitably regains every kilogram plus more.

Why maintenance becomes difficult

Regain is not explained only by motivation. A smaller body generally uses less energy, and weight loss can increase the biological drive to eat. In one study, changes in leptin, ghrelin and other appetite-related signals, together with greater reported hunger, were still present one year after a large diet-induced weight loss [46]. Modelling from a separate trial estimated that appetite pressure increased substantially with weight loss and may oppose weight loss more strongly than the accompanying change in energy expenditure [47]. These are group-level findings, not a precise calorie prediction for every individual.

The behavioural environment matters at the same time. The formal diet may end, coaching contact may stop and the person returns to the same work schedule, food availability, social cues and portions that supported their previous intake. If the method worked only because food was supplied, entire categories were temporarily banned or every day was organised around the diet, the maintenance system may disappear when the intervention does.

The strongest prospective evidence for maintenance behaviours supports continued self-monitoring of weight and eating. Reviews of successful maintainers also commonly identify physical activity, dietary consistency, portion control, keeping suitable foods available and responding early to small amounts of regain [48,49]. These are predictors and common strategies, not guarantees. Continued support helps on average: a meta-analysis found that extended care maintained approximately 3.2 kilograms more weight loss over about 18 months than minimal or no continued care [50].

What The Biggest Loser follow-up demonstrates

The follow-up of contestants from The Biggest Loser provides an extreme example of the gap between losing weight under temporary conditions and maintaining it in ordinary life.

Fourteen contestants were reassessed six years after a 30-week programme involving severe restriction, very high exercise volumes and intensive supervision. They had lost an average of 58.3 kilograms by the end of the competition. Six years later, 13 of the 14 had regained some weight and the average regain was 41 kilograms, approximately 70% of the original loss [51]. Four participants were above their pre-competition weight. At the same time, the group remained an average of 11.9% below baseline, and eight of the 14 maintained at least a 10% loss [51,52]. It would therefore be inaccurate to say that almost everyone regained everything.

The study was small, had no conventional-diet control group and did not test whether a particular set of maintenance behaviours would have prevented regain. It cannot prove that rapid loss or the extreme protocol alone caused the outcome. In a separate randomised trial, rapid and gradual weight-loss groups both regained about 70% of their losses during follow-up, suggesting that the initial rate of loss by itself does not determine maintenance [53].

The value of The Biggest Loser example is more practical. The competition created conditions that could not be reproduced indefinitely. When the supervision, schedule and controlled environment ended, maintaining the result required a different system. Most participants regained a substantial amount of weight.

An aggressive fat-loss phase can still be followed by successful maintenance, but only if there is a realistic transition. A plan that produces dramatic loss without establishing manageable eating behaviours, an appropriate food environment and a way to monitor maintenance has solved only the first part of the problem.

Can this way of eating work after the fat-loss phase?

Before choosing a diet, ask whether its basic eating structure is something you could continue after reaching your target weight.

This does not mean remaining in a calorie deficit for the rest of your life. Calories can increase to maintenance once the fat-loss phase is complete. Portions may become larger, more foods may be included and the level of tracking may become less precise. The important question is whether the underlying system is still realistic when rapid weight loss is no longer providing motivation.

Questions to consider before starting a diet include:

• Could I continue the same basic meal pattern when my calories increase to maintenance?
• Are the food rules flexible enough to accommodate meals out, holidays, family life and changing routines?
• Can I adjust my portions without abandoning the eating structure completely?
• Does this approach work with my training, work schedule and food preferences?
• Does my home and work environment make this way of eating reasonably manageable?
• Can I recognise gradual weight regain and make small adjustments before it becomes substantial?
• Would I still choose to eat broadly this way if I were no longer seeing the scale decrease each week?

If the answer to most of these questions is no, the diet may still produce short-term weight loss, but it has not provided a realistic way to maintain that loss. A more suitable diet is one that creates the required calorie deficit during the fat-loss phase while also establishing eating behaviours that can continue, with appropriate adjustments, at maintenance.

Diet comparison at a glance

No row in this table identifies a universally superior diet. Each approach is a different method of organising food choices, eating opportunities and calorie intake.

How to choose between them

The most suitable approach is the one whose advantages solve the person’s main problem without creating a larger one.

Someone who snacks continuously may benefit from a defined eating window. Someone who becomes excessively hungry while fasting may do better with regular meals. A person who enjoys lower-carbohydrate foods and trains well may prefer that structure. Someone performing high-volume training may find a higher-carbohydrate pattern easier. A person who values variety and long-term flexibility may prefer Mediterranean-style eating or a flexible calorie-and-protein approach.

Preference matters, but preference alone is not enough. The diet still needs to control calories after the novelty and early motivation fade. It also needs to provide adequate protein, fibre, essential fats and micronutrients without making training, social life or family meals unnecessarily difficult.

The useful questions are not only, “Which diet produces the fastest initial loss?” They are:

• Which structure helps me control calories consistently?
• Which foods help me manage hunger and meet my nutritional needs?
• Can I train properly while eating this way?
• Can the same basic structure continue at maintenance?

Frequently asked questions

Is keto better for fat loss than a balanced diet?

Not when calories and protein are genuinely comparable. Keto may work better for an individual when its rules improve appetite control or adherence, but controlled research does not show a large, dependable calorie-independent advantage [1-3].

Does carbohydrate stop fat loss because it raises insulin?

No. Insulin temporarily changes fuel storage and use after meals, but body-fat loss depends on net energy and fat balance across days and weeks. Higher-carbohydrate diets can produce fat loss when they create a sustained calorie deficit.

Is intermittent fasting better than daily calorie restriction?

Average results are similar when achieved energy restriction is similar [15,16]. Fasting may still work better for an individual who finds the schedule easier to follow and consequently achieves a larger deficit.

Do I have to count calories?

No. Portion rules, food selection, meal timing and reducing energy-dense foods can create a calorie deficit without formal tracking. Calorie tracking is one measurement tool, not the mechanism of fat loss.

Which diet is best for retaining muscle?

No diet label has shown universal superiority. Adequate protein and continued resistance training matter more than whether the diet is described as low carbohydrate, low fat, Mediterranean or fasting [33-37].

Are diet breaks necessary?

No. They may reduce hunger or diet fatigue, support some training periods and provide practice eating at maintenance. They do not reliably accelerate fat loss or permanently reset metabolism [20-24].

The bottom line

There is no special diet that overrides energy balance.

Low-carbohydrate, ketogenic, lower-fat, fasting, Mediterranean, plant-based and other diets can all produce body-fat loss. When calories are closely matched and protein is adequate, average differences in stored body-fat loss are generally small.

The meaningful differences are practical. Diets change food choices, meal timing, hunger, training fuel, flexibility and how easily calories are controlled. Those factors influence whether a method works for a particular person in normal life.

Choose an eating structure that creates the required deficit without unnecessary restriction, provides adequate nutrition and has a realistic path into maintenance. The deficit is temporary. The behaviours and environment that support the new body weight need to last much longer.

References

1. 1. Hall KD, Guo J. Obesity energetics: body weight regulation and the effects of diet composition. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(7):1718-1727.e3. DOI. PubMed.
2. 2. Hall KD, Bemis T, Brychta R, et al. Calorie for calorie, dietary fat restriction results in more body fat loss than carbohydrate restriction in people with obesity. Cell Metabolism. 2015;22(3):427-436. DOI. PubMed.
3. 3. Hall KD, Chen KY, Guo J, et al. Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2016;104(2):324-333. DOI. PubMed.
4. 4. Hall KD, Ayuketah A, Brychta R, et al. Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake. Cell Metabolism. 2019;30(1):67-77.e3. DOI. PubMed.
5. 5. Forde CG, Mars M, de Graaf K. Ultra-processing or oral processing? A role for energy density and eating rate in moderating energy intake from processed foods. Current Developments in Nutrition. 2020;4(3):nzaa019. DOI. PubMed.
6. 6. Kdekian A, Alssema M, Van Der Beek EM, et al. Impact of isocaloric exchanges of carbohydrate for fat on postprandial glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and free fatty acid responses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2020;74(1):1-8. DOI. PubMed.
7. 7. Ballance S, Knutsen SH, Fosvold OW, Fernandez AS, Monro J. Predicting mixed-meal measured glycaemic index in healthy subjects. European Journal of Nutrition. 2019;58(7):2657-2667. DOI. PubMed.
8. 8. Fernandez-Elias VE, Ortega JF, Nelson RK, Mora-Rodriguez R. Relationship between muscle water and glycogen recovery after prolonged exercise in the heat in humans. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2015;115(9):1919-1926. DOI. PubMed.
9. 9. Murray B, Rosenbloom C. Fundamentals of glycogen metabolism for coaches and athletes. Nutrition Reviews. 2018;76(4):243-259. DOI. PubMed.
10. 10. Anagnostou A, Larumbe-Zabala E, Fiore J, Roberts J, Naclerio F. Effects of energy-matched low- versus high-carbohydrate diets on glycaemic control, lipid profile, and body composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. European Journal of Nutrition. 2026;65(1):19. DOI. PubMed.
11. 11. Gardner CD, Trepanowski JF, Del Gobbo LC, et al. Effect of low-fat versus low-carbohydrate diet on 12-month weight loss in overweight adults and the association with genotype pattern or insulin secretion. JAMA. 2018;319(7):667-679. DOI. PubMed.
12. 12. Shai I, Schwarzfuchs D, Henkin Y, et al. Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or low-fat diet. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;359(3):229-241. DOI. PubMed.
13. 13. Johnston BC, Kanters S, Bandayrel K, et al. Comparison of weight loss among named diet programs in overweight and obese adults: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;312(9):923-933. DOI. PubMed.
14. 14. Ge L, Sadeghirad B, Ball GDC, et al. Comparison of dietary macronutrient patterns of 14 popular named dietary programmes for weight and cardiovascular risk factor reduction in adults. BMJ. 2020;369:m696. DOI. PubMed.
15. 15. Schroor MM, Joris PJ, Plat J, Mensink RP. Effects of intermittent energy restriction compared with continuous energy restriction on body composition and cardiometabolic risk markers. Advances in Nutrition. 2024;15(1):100130. DOI. PubMed.
16. 16. Garegnani LI, Oltra G, Ivaldi D, et al. Intermittent fasting for adults with overweight or obesity. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2026;2:CD015610. DOI. PubMed.
17. 17. Catenacci VA, Ostendorf DM, Pan Z, et al. The effect of 4:3 intermittent fasting on weight loss at 12 months: a randomized clinical trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2025;178(5):634-644. DOI. PubMed.
18. 18. Liu D, Huang Y, Huang C, et al. Calorie restriction with or without time-restricted eating in weight loss. New England Journal of Medicine. 2022;386(16):1495-1504. DOI. PubMed.
19. 19. Lin S, Cienfuegos S, Ezpeleta M, et al. Time-restricted eating without calorie counting for weight loss in a racially diverse population. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2023;176(7):885-895. DOI. PubMed.
20. 20. Poon ETC, Tsang JH, Sun F, Zheng C, Wong SHS. Effects of intermittent dieting with break periods on body composition and metabolic adaptation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrition Reviews. 2025;83(1):59-71. DOI. PubMed.
21. 21. Nunes CL, Casanova N, Francisco R, et al. Does adaptive thermogenesis occur after weight loss in adults? A systematic review. British Journal of Nutrition. 2022;127(3):451-469. DOI. PubMed.
22. 22. Byrne NM, Sainsbury A, King NA, Hills AP, Wood RE. Intermittent energy restriction improves weight loss efficiency in obese men: the MATADOR study. International Journal of Obesity. 2018;42(2):129-138. DOI. PubMed.
23. 23. Siedler MR, Lewis MH, Trexler ET, et al. The effects of intermittent diet breaks during 25% energy restriction on body composition and resting metabolic rate in resistance-trained females. Journal of Human Kinetics. 2023;86:117-132. DOI. PubMed.
24. 24. Peos JJ, Helms ER, Fournier PA, Krieger J, Sainsbury A. A 1-week diet break improves muscle endurance during an intermittent dieting regime in adult athletes. PLOS ONE. 2021;16(2):e0247292. DOI. PubMed.
25. 25. Esposito K, Kastorini CM, Panagiotakos DB, Giugliano D. Mediterranean diet and weight loss: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders. 2011;9(1):1-12. DOI. PubMed.
26. 26. Bajerska J, Chmurzynska A, Muzsik A, et al. Weight loss and metabolic health effects from energy-restricted Mediterranean and Central-European diets in postmenopausal women. Scientific Reports. 2018;8:11170. DOI. PubMed.
27. 27. Mishra S, Xu J, Agarwal U, Gonzales J, Levin S, Barnard ND. A multicenter randomized controlled trial of a plant-based nutrition program to reduce body weight and cardiovascular risk in the corporate setting. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2013;67(7):718-724. DOI. PubMed.
28. 28. Mellberg C, Sandberg S, Ryberg M, et al. Long-term effects of a Palaeolithic-type diet in obese postmenopausal women: a two-year randomized trial. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2014;68(3):350-357. DOI. PubMed.
29. 29. Manousou S, Stal M, Larsson C, et al. A Palaeolithic-type diet results in iodine deficiency: a 2-year randomized trial in postmenopausal obese women. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2018;72(1):124-129. DOI. PubMed.
30. 30. Chekima K, Yan SW, Lee SWH, et al. Low glycaemic index or low glycaemic load diets for people with overweight or obesity. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2023;6:CD005105. DOI. PubMed.
31. 31. Wolever TMS, Meynier A, Jenkins AL, et al. Glycemic index and insulinemic index of foods: an interlaboratory study using the ISO 2010 method. Nutrients. 2019;11(9):2218. DOI. PubMed.
32. 32. Chiavaroli L, Lee D, Ahmed A, et al. Effect of low glycaemic index or load dietary patterns on glycaemic control and cardiometabolic risk factors in diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2021;374:n1651. DOI. PubMed.
33. 33. Hudson JL, Wang Y, Bergia RE III, Campbell WW. Protein intake greater than the RDA differentially influences whole-body lean mass responses to purposeful catabolic and anabolic stressors. Advances in Nutrition. 2020;11(3):548-558. DOI. PubMed.
34. 34. Mettler S, Mitchell N, Tipton KD. Increased protein intake reduces lean body mass loss during weight loss in athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2010;42(2):326-337. DOI. PubMed.
35. 35. Longland TM, Oikawa SY, Mitchell CJ, Devries MC, Phillips SM. Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2016;103(3):738-746. DOI. PubMed.
36. 36. Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown SR. A systematic review of dietary protein during caloric restriction in resistance-trained lean athletes: a case for higher intakes. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism. 2014;24(2):127-138. DOI. PubMed.
37. 37. Binmahfoz A, Dighriri A, Gray C, Gray SR. Effect of resistance exercise on body composition, muscle strength and cardiometabolic health during dietary weight loss in people living with overweight or obesity. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine. 2025;11(3):e002363. DOI. PubMed.
38. 38. Henselmans M, Bjornsen T, Hedderman R, Varvik FT. The effect of carbohydrate intake on strength and resistance training performance: a systematic review. Nutrients. 2022;14(4):856. DOI. PubMed.
39. 39. King A, Helms E, Zinn C, Jukic I. The ergogenic effects of acute carbohydrate feeding on resistance exercise performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2022;52(11):2691-2712. DOI. PubMed.
40. 40. Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, National Health and Medical Research Council, and New Zealand Ministry of Health. Fats: total fat and fatty acids; and macronutrient balance. Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New Zealand. Fat and fatty acids. Macronutrient balance.
41. 41. Whittaker J, Wu K. Low-fat diets and testosterone in men: systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2021;210:105878. DOI. PubMed.
42. 42. Soltani S, Hejazi M, Meshkini F, et al. The effect of low-fat diets versus high-fat diet on sex hormones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Food Science. 2025;90(5):e70266. DOI. PubMed.
43. 43. Mountjoy M, Ackerman KE, Bailey DM, et al. 2023 International Olympic Committee’s consensus statement on Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023;57(17):1073-1097. DOI. Article.
44. 44. Hartmann-Boyce J, Theodoulou A, Oke JL, et al. Association between characteristics of behavioural weight loss programmes and weight change after programme end: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2021;374:n1840. DOI. PubMed.
45. 45. Anderson JW, Konz EC, Frederich RC, Wood CL. Long-term weight-loss maintenance: a meta-analysis of US studies. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2001;74(5):579-584. DOI. PubMed.
46. 46. Sumithran P, Prendergast LA, Delbridge E, et al. Long-term persistence of hormonal adaptations to weight loss. New England Journal of Medicine. 2011;365(17):1597-1604. DOI. PubMed.
47. 47. Polidori D, Sanghvi A, Seeley RJ, Hall KD. How strongly does appetite counter weight loss? Quantification of the feedback control of human energy intake. Obesity. 2016;24(11):2289-2295. DOI. PubMed.
48. 48. Varkevisser RDM, van Stralen MM, Kroeze W, Ket JCF, Steenhuis IHM. Determinants of weight loss maintenance: a systematic review. Obesity Reviews. 2019;20(2):171-211. DOI. PubMed.
49. 49. Paixao C, Dias CM, Jorge R, et al. Successful weight loss maintenance: a systematic review of weight control registries. Obesity Reviews. 2020;21(5):e13003. DOI. PubMed.
50. 50. Ross Middleton KM, Patidar SM, Perri MG. The impact of extended care on the long-term maintenance of weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews. 2012;13(6):509-517. DOI. PubMed.
51. 51. Fothergill E, Guo J, Howard L, et al. Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after The Biggest Loser competition. Obesity. 2016;24(8):1612-1619. DOI. PubMed.
52. 52. Kerns JC, Guo J, Fothergill E, et al. Increased physical activity was associated with less weight regain six years after The Biggest Loser competition. Obesity. 2018;26(1):64-66. DOI. PubMed.
53. 53. Purcell K, Sumithran P, Prendergast LA, et al. The effect of rate of weight loss on long-term weight management: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 2014;2(12):954-962. DOI. PubMed.