Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
Background: The consumption of a high protein diet (>4 g/kg/d) in trained men and women who did not alter
their exercise program has been previously shown to have no significant effect on body composition. Thus, the
purpose of this investigation was to determine if a high protein diet in conjunction with a periodized heavy resistance
training program would affect indices of body composition, performance and health.
Methods: Forty-eight healthy resistance-trained men and women completed this study (mean SD; Normal Protein
group [NP n = 17, four female and 13 male]: 24.8 6.9 yr; 174.0 9.5 cm height; 74.7 9.6 kg body weight; 2.4 1.7 yr
of training; High Protein group [HP n = 31, seven female and 24 male]: 22.9 3.1 yr; 172.3 7.7 cm; 74.3 12.4 kg;
4.9 4.1 yr of training). Moreover, all subjects participated in a split-routine, periodized heavy resistance-training
program. Training and daily diet logs were kept by each subject. Subjects in the NP and HP groups were instructed to
consume their baseline (~2 g/kg/d) and >3 g/kg/d of dietary protein, respectively.
Results: Subjects in the NP and HP groups consumed 2.3 and 3.4 g/kg/day of dietary protein during the treatment
period. The NP group consumed significantly (p < 0.05) more protein during the treatment period compared to their
baseline intake. The HP group consumed more (p < 0.05) total energy and protein during the treatment
period compared to their baseline intake. Furthermore, the HP group consumed significantly more (p < 0.05)
total calories and protein compared to the NP group. There were significant time by group (p 0.05) changes
in body weight (change: +1.3 1.3 kg NP, 0.1 2.5 HP), fat mass (change: 0.3 2.2 kg NP, 1.7 2.3 HP),
and % body fat (change: 0.7 2.8 NP, 2.4 2.9 HP). The NP group gained significantly more body weight
than the HP group; however, the HP group experienced a greater decrease in fat mass and % body fat.
There was a significant time effect for FFM; however, there was a non-significant time by group effect for
FFM (change: +1.5 1.8 NP, +1.5 2.2 HP). Furthermore, a significant time effect (p 0.05) was seen in both
groups vis a vis improvements in maximal strength (i.e., 1-RM squat and bench) vertical jump and pull-ups;
however, there were no significant time by group effects (p 0.05) for all exercise performance measures.
Additionally, there were no changes in any of the blood parameters (i.e., basic metabolic panel).
Conclusion: Consuming a high protein diet (3.4 g/kg/d) in conjunction with a heavy resistance-training program
may confer benefits with regards to body composition. Furthermore, there is no evidence that consuming a
high protein diet has any deleterious effects.
Keywords: Protein, Diet, Body Composition, Nutrition, Body Fat
* Correspondence: ja839@nova.edu
Exercise and Sports Sciences, Nova Southeastern University, 3532 S.
University Drive, University Park Plaza Suite 3532, Davie, FL 33314, USA
2015 Antonio et al. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Antonio et al. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (2015) 12:39 Page 2 of 9
Table 1 Training program Table 2 Choice of exercises for each body part
Week 1 Week 6 Exercise choices
Mon Chest, Shoulder, Triceps (3 15, Mon Back, Biceps (3 5) Chest (subject performed 3 of these) flat bench press, incline bench
sets reps; does not include 2 warm up sets) press, cable cross-overs, pec deck, flat bench flies, decline
bench press
Tues Hips, Legs (3 15) Tues Chest, Shoulder,
Triceps (3 5) Shoulders (subject performed 3 of these) upright row, machine
military press, dumbbell overhead presses, lateral dumbbell
Wed Back, Biceps (3 15) Wed Hips, Legs (3 12) raises, shoulder shrugs
Thurs Chest, Shoulders, Triceps (3 10) Thurs Back, Biceps (3 12) Triceps (subject performed 2 of these) triceps pushdowns, dips,
Fri Hips, Legs (3 10) Fri Chest, Shoulder, French press
Triceps (3 12) Back (subject performed 4 of these) Wide grip lat pulldown,
Sat REST Sat REST narrow grip lat pulldown, chin ups, cable rows, dumbbell
rows, dumbbell flies
Sun - REST Sun REST
Biceps (subject performed 3 of these) standing barbell curls,
Week 2 Week 7 standing EZ bar curl, concentration curls, preacher curls,
Mon Back, Biceps (3 10) Mon Hips, Legs (3 8) hammer curls
Tues Chest, Shoulder, Triceps (3 5) Tues Back, Biceps (3 8) Legs (subject performed 5 of these) Back squats, Smith machine
squats, Leg Press, Lunges, Leg curls, Leg extensions, calf raise
Wed Hips, Legs (3 5) Wed Chest, Shoulders, (seated or standing), Stiff-legged deadlift
Triceps (3 8)
Thurs Back, Biceps (3 5) Thurs Hips, Legs (3 8)
Fri Chest, Shoulder, Triceps (3 12) Week 8 (Tapering week) significant difference (p < 0.05) between the NP and HP
Sat REST Mon Chest, Shoulders,
groups regarding years of training experience. Other-
Triceps (3 515) wise, no differences existed at baseline.
Sun REST Tues REST
Body composition
Week 3 Wed Back, Biceps (3 515)
Body composition changes are presented in Table 4
Mon Hips, Legs (3 12) Thurs REST
and Figs 1, 2, 3 and 4. There were no differences
Tues Back, Biceps (3 12) Fri Hip, Legs (3 1515) between the NP and HP groups for any of the body
Wed Chest, Shoulders, Triceps (3 10) Sat REST composition, performance or health variables at base-
Thurs Hips, Legs (3 10) Sun REST line. The NP and HP group experienced a significant
Fri Back, Biceps (3 10) change (pre vs post) for fat free mass, fat mass and %
body fat (p < 0.05) (Table 4 and Figs 2, 3 and 4). The
Sat REST
NP group also experienced a significant increase in
Sun REST
body weight (p < 0.05) (Table 4 and Fig. 1). However,
Week 4 between group differences were found for fat mass
Mon Chest, Shoulders, Triceps (3 5) and percent body fat; the HP group lost an average of
Tues Hips, Legs (3 5) 1.6 kg of fat mass versus 0.3 kg in the NP group.
Wed Back, Biceps (3 5) Moreover, the percent body fat decrease was 2.4 %
and 0.6 % in the HP and NP groups respectively.
Thurs Chest, Shoulder, Triceps (3 12)
(Table 4 and Figs 3, 4).
Fri Hip, Legs (3 12)
Sat REST Exercise performance
Sun REST The heavy resistance training program produced a
Week 5 significant (p < 0.05) increase in 1-RM strength for both
Mon Chest, Shoulder, Triceps (3 12)
Table 3 Subject characteristics
Tues Hips, Legs (3 8)
Age years Height cm Weight kg Years training
Wed Back, Biceps (3 8)
Normal Protein (NP) 24.8 6.9 174.0 9.5 74.7 15.3 2.4 1.7*
Thurs Chest, Shoulders, Triceps (3 8)
n = 17
Fri Hips, Legs (3 5) (4 female, 13 male)
Sat REST High Protein (HP) 22.9 3.1 172.3 7.7 74.3 12.4 4.9 4.1
Sun - REST n = 31
(7 female, 24 male)
Data are mean SD. Legend: cm centimeters, kg kilograms. *P <0.05 significant
between group differences
Antonio et al. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (2015) 12:39 Page 5 of 9
Diet
There were no significant differences in dietary intake at Blood analysis
baseline between the NP and HP groups. The NP group There were no changes in any of the variables mea-
however increased their protein consumption over the sured as part of the basic metabolic panel (i.e., glucose,
treatment period (p < 0.05) (total protein and per kg calcium, sodium, potassium, CO2, chloride, blood urea
body weight). The HP group consumed significantly nitrogen and creatinine; Table 7).
more calories and more protein (p < 0.05) over the
treatment period (total protein and per kg body Discussion
weight). However, there were between group differ- This is the second investigation from our laboratory
ences (p < 0.05) for dietary energy and protein intake that has examined the effects of a true high protein diet
(HP > NP) during the treatment period (Table 6). (i.e., > 2 grams per kg body weight daily). Previously
There were no significant changes in carbohydrate or published work has shown that the mere addition of
Fig. 1 Each data point represents the change for an individual. The Fig. 3 Each data point represents the change for an individual. The
horizontal lines represent the mean SD. Legend: HP high protein; horizontal lines represent the mean SD. Legend: HP high protein;
NP normal protein NP normal protein
Antonio et al. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (2015) 12:39 Page 6 of 9
protein, both sleep and resting 24-h energy expenditure study did not alter fat intake; thus, that could not be an
increased in relation to protein intake. However, this explanation for changes in body composition. One could
investigation found no relationship between changes in speculate that subjects in the high protein diet group ex-
fat mass and changes in energy expenditure [14]. It perienced a combination of enhanced TEF, AEE, NEAT
should be noted that there was not an exercise compo- and SEE; this might explain in part the decrease in fat
nent to that study. mass. Furthermore, the high protein group was more
Another study examined 12 pairs of identical twins compliant with the exercise training regimen.
that overfed (~840 kcals extra daily) over 100 days [15]. The training regimen used in the current study was
The average gain in fat mass and FFM were 5.4 kg and clearly effective in producing an adaptive response. Both
2.7 kg. In comparison, our study showed an average loss groups experienced a significant increase in muscular
of fat mass (0.3 kg normal group, 1.6 kg high protein strength, power and endurance. It should be emphasized
group) and gain in FFM (1.5 kg for both the normal and that it is quite difficult for trained subjects to gain FFM.
high protein group). The authors of the identical twin Thus, the fact that on average both the normal and high
overfeeding study noted that no single variable was a protein groups gained 1.5 kg of FFM is an important point.
great predictor of body composition changes [15]. The The high protein diet group was more trained (i.e., years
identical twin overfeeding study did not have an exercise of training experience) than the normal protein group. This
component and did not use trained subjects. Thus, its may explain in part why the HP group did not gain more
relevance is questionable in athletic populations that FFM than the NP group. Thus, any gain in FFM and
purposefully engage in overfeeding. strength may be viewed as a possible result of the extra pro-
In a similar study, participants were fed 140 % of tein consumed. However, the HP group was also more
energy needs, with 5, 15 or 25 % of energy from protein, compliant with the training program and that would cer-
for 56 days. They discovered that changes in vector tainly be another causative factor in promoting FFM gains.
magnitude (VM), a weight-independent measure of On average, both groups experienced a gain in FFM
activity and activity-related energy expenditure (AEE) and a loss of fat mass; nonetheless, our data demonstrate
were positively correlated with weight gain; however, that there is a bit of individual variability in the
protein intake had no effect on changes in activity. Thus, response. At the high end, there were subjects in the
overfeeding produces an increase in physical activity normal and high protein group that gained up to 7 kg of
and in energy expended in physical activity after adjusting FFM and lost up to 4 kg of fat mass. Conversely, there
for changes in body composition, suggesting that increased were subjects who lost FFM or gained fat mass. In
activity in response to weight gain might be one mechan- general, our data suggest that vast majority of individuals
ism to support adaptive thermogenesis [16]. Again this (~70 %) that consume a high protein diet (>2 g per kg
study did not have an exercise training component. daily) do indeed get an improvement in body compos-
It is possible that in the current investigation, changes in ition. A study by Hubal et al. showed that among 585
AEE and perhaps non-exercise activity thermogenesis subjects that underwent a unilateral resistance training
(NEAT) might account in part for the greater changes in program of the elbow flexors, several subjects showed
body composition in the high protein diet group [17, 18]. no gain in muscle size whereas others experienced a
According to Levine et al., NEAT can vary substantially be- profound increase [21]. This shows indeed that there is a
tween individuals by as much as 2000 kcals daily [18]. fairly substantive genetic component to the exercise
Obese individuals tend to be seated more than lean individ- training response; it would also be reasonable that such
uals up to 2.5 h daily. That could represent an additional a component exists with the addition of a dietary treat-
350 kcals expended per day. Thus, it is possible that in the ment (ex., increased protein intake).
individuals in which NEAT increased the most during over- This study also found no harmful effects of consuming
feeding, they were more likely to lose fat mass. And one a high protein diet on renal function. Thus, professionals
could speculate that the more advanced training status of who work with athletes (i.e., sports nutritionists, sports
the high protein group might lend itself to greater NEAT. dietitians, clinical nutritionists, medical doctors, strength
Certainly, one should not discount the role of proteins coaches, athletic trainers, etc.) should be aware that ath-
thermic effect (i.e., TEF or thermic effect of feeding). Pro- letes can consume very high amounts of protein with no
tein has a TEF of approximately 1923 % in both obese harmful effects over a period of several weeks. Whether
and lean individuals whereas carbohydrate is approxi- side effects will occur over longer protein overfeeding
mately 1214 % [19]. In fact, a high protein meal (45 % periods has not yet been investigated.
total kcal) elicits a 30 % greater TEF than an isocaloric
low protein meal (15 % total kcal) in active females [20]. It Conclusion
should be noted that the TEF of fat is substantially less in In conclusion, this is the first randomized controlled trial
the obese than in lean subjects [19]. The subjects in our that has examined the effects of consuming a high protein
Antonio et al. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (2015) 12:39 Page 9 of 9
diet in conjunction with a periodized heavy resistance Received: 9 July 2015 Accepted: 13 October 2015
training regimen over the course of several weeks on
markers of performance, health and body composition. References
This study as well as previous work from our lab suggests 1. Campbell B, Kreider RB, Ziegenfuss T, La Bounty P, Roberts M, Burke D, et al.
that gains in body fat are unlikely to occur with protein International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: protein and exercise.
J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2007;4.
overfeeding [6]. Furthermore, gains in FFM can indeed 2. Phillips SM, Moore DR, Tang JE. A critical examination of dietary protein
occur in trained subjects with no harmful side effects of requirements, benefits, and excesses in athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc
high protein consumption. This investigation confutes the Metab. 2007;17(Suppl):S5876.
3. Tipton KD. Efficacy and consequences of very-high-protein diets for athletes
notion that trained subjects need only 1.52.0 grams of and exercisers. Proc Nutr Soc. 2011;70:20514.
protein per kg body weight daily and that intakes above 4. Daly RM, OConnell SL, Mundell NL, Grimes CA, Dunstan DW, Nowson
that are superflous. In fact, we would speculate that the CA. Protein-enriched diet, with the use of lean red meat, combined
with progressive resistance training enhances lean tissue mass and
minimal daily needs of dietary protein in trained individ- muscle strength and reduces circulating IL-6 concentrations in elderly
uals should be approximately 2 g/kg/d. women: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr.
Limitations of this study include the fact that the NP 2014;99:899910.
5. Dipla K, Makri M, Zafeiridis A, Soulas D, Tsalouhidou S, Mougios V, et al.
group exceeded their baseline protein intake. This was An isoenergetic high-protein, moderate-fat diet does not compromise
contrary to the instructions given to them. Subjects in strength and fatigue during resistance exercise in women. Br J Nutr.
this group were instructed to maintain their regular 2008;100:2836.
6. Antonio J, Peacock CA, Ellerbroek A, Fromhoff B, Silver T. The effects of
protein intake of 2 grams of protein per kg daily. consuming a high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in
Nonetheless, this group ended up significantly increasing resistance-trained individuals. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2014;11:19.
their protein intake. However, there was an increase in 7. Dumville JC, Hahn S, Miles JN, Torgerson DJ. The use of unequal
randomisation ratios in clinical trials: a review. Contemp Clin Trials.
LBM with no overall changes in fat mass. It should be 2006;27:112.
noted that the HP group had significantly more training 8. Turner-McGrievy GM, Beets MW, Moore JB, Kaczynski AT, Barr-Anderson
experience than the NP group. This would likely result in DJ, Tate DF. Comparison of traditional versus mobile app self-
monitoring of physical activity and dietary intake among overweight
less of an ability to gain LBM over a finite training period. adults participating in an mHealth weight loss program. J Am Med
Dietary self-reports also present problems vis--vis its Inform Assoc. 2013;20:5138.
accuracy. However, much of the additional protein 9. NSCAs guide to tests and assessments 1 edition By National Strength &
Conditioning Association (U.S.). Todd Miller, editor. 2012. Human Kinetics.
consumed by subjects was in the form of protein pow- 10. Phillips SM. Protein requirements and supplementation in strength sports.
der; it would seem reasonable to assume that subjects Nutrition. 2004;20:68995.
could provide an accurate dietary recall with such a 11. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, Parise G, Bellamy L, Baker SK, Smith K, et
al. Acute post-exercise myofibrillar protein synthesis is not correlated with
simple dietary addition. Furthermore, from an entirely resistance training-induced muscle hypertrophy in young men. PLoS One.
pragmatic perspective, the use of dietary recalls (i.e., our 2014;9, e89431.
investigation examined intake daily) is the most logical 12. Moore DR, Robinson MJ, Fry JL, Tang JE, Glover EI, Wilkinson SB, et al.
Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis
option. Unless investigators literally measure every food after resistance exercise in young men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89:1618.
and beverage consumed by a subject, it is pragmatically 13. Utter AC, Goss FL, Swan PD, Harris GS, Robertson RJ, Trone GA. Evaluation
impossible to get 100 % accuracy particularly in free- of air displacement for assessing body composition of collegiate wrestlers.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35:5005.
living subjects. Future work should examine very highly 14. Bray GA, Redman LM, de Jonge L, Covington J, Rood J, Brock C, et al. Effect
trained athletes who undergo cycles of varying protein of protein overfeeding on energy expenditure measured in a metabolic
intake over a period of several months or years. This chamber. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101:496505.
15. Bouchard C, Tchernof A, Tremblay A. Predictors of body composition and
would at least provide information in terms of whether body energy changes in response to chronic overfeeding. Int J Obes (Lond).
the highly trained respond more so to a change in train- 2014;38:23642.
ing stimulus, diet or a combination of both. 16. Apolzan JW, Bray GA, Smith SR, de Jonge L, Rood J, Han H, et al. Effects of
weight gain induced by controlled overfeeding on physical activity. Am J
Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2014;307:E10307.
Competing interests 17. Teske JA, Billington CJ, Kotz CM. Neuropeptidergic mediators of
All authors have declared no competing interests or financial interests spontaneous physical activity and non-exercise activity thermogenesis.
concerning the outcome of this investigation. Neuroendocrinology. 2008;87:7190.
18. Levine JA, Vander Weg MW, Hill JO, Klesges RC. Non-exercise activity
thermogenesis: the crouching tiger hidden dragon of societal weight gain.
Authors contributions Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006;26:72936.
The study was designed by JA; data were collected by SO, AE, AG, MS, CP, TS 19. Swaminathan R, King RF, Holmfield J, Siwek RA, Baker M, Wales JK. Thermic
and JA; data interpretation was undertaken by JA, CP and TS. Manuscript effect of feeding carbohydrate, fat, protein and mixed meal in lean and
preparation was performed by JA, TS and CP. All authors approved the final obese subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1985;42:17781.
version of this paper. 20. Binns A, Gray M, Di Brezzo R. Thermic effect of food, exercise, and total
energy expenditure in active females. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18:2048.
21. Hubal MJ, Gordish-Dressman H, Thompson PD, Price TB, Hoffman EP,
Acknowledgements Angelopoulos TJ, et al. Variability in muscle size and strength gain after
We would like to thank Essentia Metabolic Proteins for donating beef unilateral resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:96472.
protein isolate. Essentia Metabolic Proteins had zero role in the study design,
data interpretation or any other matter regarding this study.