Skip to content
CholesterolResearch
← All studies
Low tierImaging StudyCitation verified

Carbohydrate Restriction-Induced Elevations in LDL-Cholesterol and Atherosclerosis: The KETO Trial

Matthew Budoff, Venkat S Manubolu, April Kinninger, Nicholas G Norwitz, David Feldman, Khurram Nasir - JACC: Advances, 2024

The cross-sectional baseline arm of the Keto-CTA study: in lean, metabolically healthy people whose LDL rose very high on a ketogenic diet, coronary plaque burden was no greater than in matched lower-LDL controls, and LDL-C did not correlate with plaque within either group.

Key findings

Why this evidence tier (Low)

Risk of bias:
Small, self-selected cohort matched to an external control group; cross-sectional baseline only.
Precision:
n=80; wide IQRs; low event/plaque counts limit precision.
Directness:
Measures plaque (a surrogate for events), not cardiovascular events; baseline (not longitudinal) here.
Consistency:
Single cohort; the longitudinal follow-up complicates the picture (see limitations).
Funding / COI:
Associated with citizen-science/low-carb advocacy (Feldman); registered trial NCT05733255.

Low certainty: a small cross-sectional imaging study with no outcome data; suggestive for the LMHR phenotype but far from definitive.

Population:
80 lean, metabolically healthy adults (mean age 55.5) with carbohydrate-restriction-induced LDL-C >=190 mg/dL (mean 272, max 591), mean 4.7 years ketogenic; matched 1:1 to Miami Heart cohort controls (mean LDL-C 123 mg/dL).
Conflicts of interest:
Co-author Dave Feldman founded the Citizen Science Foundation and advocates around the LMHR phenotype; senior author Budoff is an established CV imaging researcher. See source for disclosures.
Funding:
Not reported on the fetched abstract; registered as NCT05733255.

Limitations

  • Cross-sectional baseline; no cardiovascular event data.
  • Small (n=80), self-selected, predominantly healthy volunteers; matched to an external control cohort.
  • The one-year longitudinal follow-up (Soto-Mota et al., JACC: Advances 2025, DOI 10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.101686) was retracted by the authors and editors over methodology concerns, so reliable longitudinal plaque-progression data are not currently available; this cross-sectional baseline must not be read as evidence of long-term safety.

How this study is used