A 2025 study claiming that the keto diet does not contribute to arterial plaque formation has been officially retracted after intense scientific criticism of its methods and conclusions. The journal stated that the “errors identified are too substantial to be corrected through a simple correction,” leading to full withdrawal of the paper.
The study, published in JACC: Advances, examined 100 generally healthy individuals who experienced increased cholesterol levels while following a ketogenic diet. Using imaging scans taken one year apart, the authors reported that there was no link between the keto diet and the development of arterial plaques.
However, this conclusion sharply contradicted earlier research and sparked widespread controversy in the nutrition science community. Critics quickly pointed to methodological problems, including selective reporting of results, questionable statistical analysis, and a relatively short observation period. Some also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the scientific background of one of the authors, who is not a licensed medical professional.
After publication, several authors later stated they did not initially have full access to the dataset and were unaware of key aspects of how the analysis had been conducted. They said they only reviewed the data after the paper was published and promptly informed the journal. A formal expression of concern was issued before the eventual retraction.
In response, a reanalysis of the data was later conducted using an independent blinded review process. While the authors argued that the updated analysis addressed earlier criticisms, skeptics disagreed, saying the revised interpretation still failed to resolve core issues and continued to reflect bias toward a predetermined narrative.
The debate has extended beyond academic circles, with some researchers accusing parts of the discussion around the study of being influenced by social media-driven advocacy rather than rigorous science. Others argue that the episode highlights deeper problems in transparency, data handling, and conflicts of interest in nutritional research.
Despite the retraction, some of the authors maintain that the underlying findings remain meaningful, while critics insist that the original claims were overstated and should never have been presented as evidence of a “paradigm shift” in dietary science.
Follow NEWS.am Medicine on Facebook and Twitter