Article

Effects of a high protein diet on body weight and comorbidities associated with obesity

Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, Room P5-16 Playford Building, University of South Australia, Frome Rd, Adelaide 5000, SA, Australia.
The British journal of nutrition (Impact Factor: 3.34). 08/2012; 108(S2):S122-S129. DOI: 10.1017/S0007114512002322
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Red meat intake has been frequently associated with the development of coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes but vegetable protein has been associated with protection from these diseases. Whether this is related to the protein per se or to the increased polyunsaturated fat or higher fibre levels associated with more vegetarian diets is not clear. High protein diets are associated with greater satiety and in some studies are associated with greater weight loss compared with high carbohydrate diets especially in an ad libitum design. These diets also lower plasma triglyceride and blood pressure and sometimes spare lean mass. There appear to be no harmful effects of high protein diets on bone density or renal function in weight loss studies.

Full-text

Available from: Peter M Clifton, Mar 18, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
153 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose of review Despite evidence that energy deficit produces multiple physiological and metabolic benefits, clinicians are often reluctant to prescribe weight loss in older individuals or those with low bone mineral density (BMD), fearing BMD will be decreased. Confusion exists concerning the effects that weight loss has on bone health. Recent findings Bone density is more closely associated with lean mass than total body mass and fat mass. Although rapid or large weight loss is often associated with loss of bone density, slower or smaller weight loss is much less apt to adversely affect BMD, especially when it is accompanied with high intensity resistance and/or impact loading training. Maintenance of calcium and vitamin D intake seems to positively affect BMD during weight loss. Although dual energy X-ray absorptiometry is normally used to evaluate bone density, it may overestimate BMD loss following massive weight loss. Volumetric quantitative computed tomography may be more accurate for tracking bone density changes following large weight loss. Summary Moderate weight loss does not necessarily compromise bone health, especially when exercise training is involved. Training strategies that include heavy resistance training and high impact loading that occur with jump training may be especially productive in maintaining, or even increasing bone density with weight loss.
    Current Opinion in Endocrinology Diabetes and Obesity 08/2014; 21(5). DOI:10.1097/MED.0000000000000087 · 3.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Sub-clinical systemic inflammation has been implicated in the pathophysiology of obesity. In addition to impacting body weight, dietary modification may modulate markers of inflammation. Methods Overweight/obese adults were recruited to an eight-week dietary intervention characterized by energy restriction and increased complex carbohydrate intake. Blood samples for inflammatory and metabolic markers as well as anthropometric measurements were taken before and following the intervention. Results The study included 72 overweight or obese participants (BMI 31.8±5.8 kg/m2). Significant reductions from baseline weight, BMI, waist and hip circumference were observed following dietary intervention. Levels of inflammatory markers hs-CRP, ESR, WBC, and ICAM decreased significantly from baseline following the 8-week intervention. Metabolic measures including serum triglycerides, total and low density lipoprotein cholesterol significantly declined from baseline. Insulin and HOMA-IR declined in the subgroup of hyperinsulinemic participants. Conclusion An energy-restricted diet rich in complex carbohydrates is associated with weight loss, reduction of inflammatory markers and improved metabolic profile.
    07/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.bcdf.2014.07.001
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is limited evidence with regard to the effect of different sources of protein on appetite during weight loss. Vegetarian and meat-based high-protein diets may have contrasting effects on appetite and biomarkers of protein-induced satiety.OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess appetite response to meat or vegetarian high-protein weight-loss (HPWL) diets in obese men to monitor plasma amino acid profile and gut peptide response as potential satiety biomarkers.DESIGN: Twenty obese [body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 34.8] men participated in a dietary intervention study. After 3 d of a maintenance diet, they were provided in a crossover design with either a vegetarian HPWL (Soy-HPWL) or a meat-based HPWL (Meat-HPWL) diet for 2 wk. Both diets comprised 30% protein, 30% fat, and 40% carbohydrate, provided to measured resting metabolic rate. Body weight and the motivation to eat were measured daily. Plasma satiety biomarkers were collected during a test-meal challenge (5 h) at the end of each diet period.RESULTS: Over the 2 wk, subjects lost, on average, 2.41 and 2.27 kg with consumption of the Soy- and Meat-HPWL diets, respectively [P = 0.352; SE of the difference (SED): 0.1]. ANOVA confirmed that subjectively rated hunger (P = 0.569; SED: 3.8), fullness (P = 0.404; SED: 4.1), desire to eat (P = 0.356; SED: 3.7), preservation of lean body mass (P = 0.334; SED: 0.2), and loss of percentage fat mass (P = 0.179; SED: 0.2) did not differ between the 2 HPWL diets. There were differences in absolute concentrations of ghrelin and peptide YY between the 2 HPWL diets, although the response as net area under the curve was not different.Conclusions: Appetite control and weight loss were similar for both HPWL diets. Gut hormone profile was similar between the diets, which suggests that vegetarian diets can be as effective as meat-based diets for appetite control during weight loss. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02080325.
    American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 06/2014; 100(2). DOI:10.3945/ajcn.113.077503 · 6.92 Impact Factor