Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
net/publication/275667598
CITATIONS READS
134 1,396
8 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Peter M Clifton on 05 January 2016.
1320S Am J Clin Nutr 2015;101(Suppl):1320S–9S. Printed in USA. Ó 2015 American Society for Nutrition
PROTEIN AND WEIGHT MANAGEMENT 1321S
MECHANISTIC OUTCOMES WITH ACUTE PROTEIN Gosby et al. (17) completed a randomized crossover study in-
CONSUMPTION volving three 4-d ad libitum diets containing 10%, 15%, or 25% of
energy as protein. When the protein content of the diet was lowered
Thermic effect of food and resting energy expenditure from 15% to 10%, daily energy intake increased by 12 6 4.5%
Higher-protein diets have been promoted to increase energy (+259 kcal/d; P , 0.05). However, despite the additional energy
expenditure through increased postprandial thermogenesis consumed, dietary protein remained lower than what was con-
and resting metabolism. In general, dietary protein requires sumed in the 15% diet (23% of energy, 275 g protein over 4 d).
20–30% of its usable energy to be expended for metabolism When the protein content of the diet increased from 15% to 25%,
and/or storage, whereas carbohydrates require 5–10% and energy intake remained unchanged. By using a similar design,
dietary fats require 0–3% (7). Previous reviews confirmed Martens et al. (18) compared 12-d ad libitum diets consisting of
that dietary protein consistently elicits a greater postprandial 5%, 15%, or 30% of intake as protein. No change in energy intake
thermic effect of food (TEF)6 than do carbohydrates or fats was observed between the 5% and 15% protein diets; however,
(8, 9). Furthermore, in a recent meta-analysis, protein intake energy intake was lower (2576 6 103 kcal/d) after the 30% than
was shown to be positively associated with TEF after adjustment after the 15% protein diet (18). In a second trial of comparable
for covariates (r = 0.43, P = 0.009), such as sex, caffeine intake, design, this group used a different predominant protein source (beef
and dinner energy intake (10). Although differences in TEF are compared with soy or whey with a-lactalbumin) and obtained
evident after the consumption of lower- compared with higher- similar results (19). Thus, whereas the Martens et al. trials con-
protein meals, the actual energy differential is modest, highly firmed the satiety value of protein, no study in humans has tested
variable, and difficult to quantify, and hence, probably has mini- and shown the convergence of protein intake from diets with higher
mal impact on weight loss and weight maintenance. and lower relative protein content. Whether the time course of these
Higher-protein ad libitum diets have led to unintentional weight not all (64–66), studies the consumption of whey protein elicited
loss caused from reductions in daily energy intake, which may a greater reduction in postprandial hunger and a greater increase
have occurred as a result of increased satiety (14, 15). in postprandial satiety than consumption of casein and/or soy.
A challenge with this line of research is determining the “best” The contribution of protein quality on these outcomes is further
index of satiety (or overall appetite) (33, 34). Although postprandial supported by the Veldhorst et al. (50, 51) studies that compared
appetitive sensations and hormonal responses are associated with higher- with lower-protein meals but included different types of
and may lead to alterations in subsequent energy intake (23, 24, protein. In one study, greater reductions in postprandial ghrelin
35–38), they do not consistently track with each other. More work and increases in postprandial fullness and GLP-1 responses were
is needed to identify the most important indexes of appetite (hun- observed after the higher-protein whey meals than after the
ger, satiety) and associated markers (appetitive sensations, gut lower-protein whey meals, whereas the second study found no
hormones) for weight management over the long term. differences in postprandial ghrelin or GLP-1 concentrations after
the higher-protein casein meals when compared with the lower-
protein casein meals. Because many studies incorporated a mixture
APPETITE AND SUBSEQUENT FOOD INTAKE AFTER of proteins and typically vary these proteins within and between
HIGHER-PROTEIN MEALS the lower- and higher-protein meals, it is difficult to determine
Despite the large number of randomized, acute meal, cross- the actual contribution of protein quantity due to the protein
over-design studies published over the past 20 y, to our quality effects.
knowledge, there are no systematic reviews or meta-analyses to Another confounding factor concerns the potential for a pro-
date comparing the effects of normal-protein with higher-protein tein quantity threshold effect. Several articles reported a specific
meals on markers of appetite, satiety, and subsequent food intake. meal-related protein threshold of w25–30 g protein that is
Stubbs, 1999 (39) 66 Plant 207 Animal 1400 Solid 120 Y (45) [ (10) — — — Ø
Stubbs, 1996 (40) 58 Mixed 185 Mixed 1400 Solid 240 Ø [ (10) — — — Ø
Batterham, 2006 (13) 46 Mixed 178 Mixed 1100 Solid 180 Y (58) — Ø [ (21) Ø —
Brennan, 2012 (41) 28 Mixed 127 Mixed 1130 Solid 180 Y (37) [ (49) Y (28) Ø Y (148)
Foster-Schubert, 2008 (25) 13 Dairy (no eggs, whey) 100 Mixed 500 Beverage 180 Ø Ø Y (38) — — —
Belza, 2013 (30) 24 Mixed 88 Mixed 700 Solid 240 Y (25) [ (19) Y (10) [ (14) [ (20) Ø
Barkeling, 1990 (42) 16 Plant 64 Animal 600 Solid 240 Ø Ø — — — Y (38)
van der Klaauw, 2013 (43) 20 Mixed (no pork) 60 Mixed 400 Solid 240 Ø Ø Ø [ (28) [ (20) Ø
Boelsma, 2010 (44) 17 Whey 59 Whey 675 Beverage 240 Ø Ø Y (4) — — Ø
Blom, 2006 (45) 19 Dairy 57 Dairy 400 Semisolid 180 Ø Ø Y (45) — [ (66) Ø
El Khoury, 2010 (46) 14 Mixed 55 Mixed 550 Beverage 240 — — Ø Ø — —
Vozzo, 2003 (47) 25 Dairy 51 Dairy 700 Semisolid 180 Ø — — — — Ø
Leidy, 2010 (48) 26 Mixed (no pork, eggs) 46 Mixed 700 Solid 600 Ø [ (6) Ø [ (20) — —
Leidy, 2010 (49) 26 Mixed 46 Mixed 500 Solid 240 — Ø Ø Ø — Y (131)
Belza, 2013 (30) 24 Mixed 44 Mixed 700 Solid 240 Y (15) [ (6) Ø [ (7) [ (10) Ø
Veldhorst, 2009 (50) 15 Whey 38 Whey 600 Semisolid 240 — [ (12) Y (38) — [ (60) Ø
Veldhorst, 2009 (51) 15 Casein 38 Casein 600 Semisolid 240 — Ø — Ø Ø
PROTEIN AND WEIGHT MANAGEMENT
[ (36)
Veldhorst, 2009 (52) 15 Soy 38 Soy 600 Semisolid 240 — [ (36) Ø — Ø Ø
Al Awar, 2005 (53) 20 Dairy 36 Dairy 400 Solid 180 — — Ø — — —
Smeets, 2008 (54) 14 Pork 35 Pork 350 Solid 180 — [ (10) Ø Ø Ø —
Leidy, 2013 (55) 13 Mixed (no beef, eggs) 35 Mixed 350 Solid 480 Ø [ (9) Ø Ø — Ø
Leidy, 2007 (29) 17 Mixed (no pork) 28 Mixed 400 Solid 195 Y (17) Ø Y (8) — — —
Makris, 2011 (56) 12 Mixed 24 Mixed 350 Solid 240 Ø Ø — — — Ø
Karhunen, 2010 (57) 3 Plant 20 Plant 300 Solid 120 Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø
1
n = 24 studies. Higher-protein compared with lower-protein meals: [, increased; Y, reduced; Ø, no difference; —, not assessed. GLP-1, glucagon-like peptide 1; PYY, peptide YY.
1323S
breakfast, the higher-protein version led to less energy consumed percentage of protein consumed within the diet can be sustained
throughout the day, particularly from high-fat/high-sugar evening over the long term.
snacks (55).
basis of those who showed successful weight loss compared with at breakfast for improved satiety and reductions in unhealthy
those who did not. The change in protein intake (from habitual snacking in the evening (55, 94). Future research that ex-
intake) was compared between groups. An average increase in plores meal-specific protein quantity and timing of consumption
protein consumption of 28.6% g protein $ kg21 $ d21 beyond is warranted.
habitual protein intake was needed to elicit significant weight
loss (90). Thus, if habitual protein intake in US adults (ages 19–
70 y) is, on average, 88 g/d (1.07 g protein $ kg21 $ d21), then CONCLUSIONS
the addition of only w25–30 g protein/d [up to 113–118 g/d Higher-protein diets that contain between 1.2 and 1.6 g
(w1.38 g protein $ kg21 $ d21)] would potentially be sufficient protein $ kg21 $ d21 and potentially include meal-specific
to elicit long-term improvements in weight management (90). In protein quantities of at least w25–30 g protein/meal provide
addition, under isoenergetic conditions, the increase in protein improvements in appetite, body weight management, and/or
appears to be the critical component, not the reduction in car- cardiometabolic risk factors compared with lower-protein diets
bohydrates or fat (91). (Table 2). Although greater satiety, weight loss, fat mass loss,
The protein quantities proposed above are within the ac- and/or the preservation of lean mass are often observed with
ceptable macronutrient range for protein and allow for the ability increased protein consumption in controlled feeding studies, the
to meet the dietary guidelines for other requirements including lack of dietary compliance with prescribed diets in free-living
fruit, vegetables, dairy, and fiber. However, a 2-y study by adults makes it challenging to confirm a sustained protein effect
Jesudason et al. (92) prescribed a 20-g increase in protein intake over the long term.
but achieved a difference of only 16 g/d at 1 y and 13 g/d at 2 y,
suggesting a 25–30-g/d increase might be a difficult target to The authors’ responsibilities were as follows—All of the authors partic-
TABLE 2
Summary of review
Conclusions Limitations and/or gaps in the current literature
· Higher-protein energy-restriction diets lead to greater · Research is needed to examine whether the satiety effects
weight loss, fat mass loss, and preservation of lean mass of protein promote voluntary reductions in energy intake
along with greater improvements in select and improved body weight management over the long
cardiometabolic health outcomes, over the shorter term, term.
compared with lower-protein diets. Potential mechanisms
of action include the marginal increase in thermogenesis
and satiety after the consumption of protein-rich meals.
· Although the long-term data are less consistent, persistent · Dietary compliance appears to be the primary contributor
effects of increased protein consumption are evident with to discrepant findings related to energy balance because
respect to weight maintenance and/or the prevention of improvements in weight management were detected in
weight re(gain). those who adhered to the prescribed higher-protein
regimen, whereas those who did not adhere to the diet
had no marked improvements.
· Future long-term research including family-based
interventions with dietary counseling and meal-specific
quantities of protein are warranted.
· Higher-protein diets that contain between 1.2 and 1.6 g · Future research exploring meal-specific protein quantity
protein $ kg21 $ d21 and potentially include meal- and timing of consumption are warranted.
specific protein quantities of at least w25–30 g protein/
meal provide improvements in appetite, body weight
management, and/or cardiometabolic risk factors.
PROTEIN AND WEIGHT MANAGEMENT 1327S
sponsors were involved in the design, implementation, analysis, or interpre- 24. Verdich C, Flint A, Gutzwiller JP, Naslund E, Beglinger C, Hellstrom
tation of data. PM, Long SJ, Morgan LM, Holst JJ, Astrup A. A meta-analysis of the
effect of glucagon-like peptide-1 (7-36) amide on ad libitum energy
intake in humans. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:4382–9.
25. Foster-Schubert KE, Overduin J, Prudom CE, Liu J, Callahan HS,
REFERENCES Gaylinn BD, Thorner MO, Cummings DE. Acyl and total ghrelin
1. Westerterp-Plantenga MS, Lemmens SG, Westerterp KR. Dietary are suppressed strongly by ingested proteins, weakly by lipids, and
protein—its role in satiety, energetics, weight loss and health. Br J Nutr biphasically by carbohydrates. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008;93:
2012;108(Suppl 2):S105–12. 1971–9.
2. Clifton P. Effects of a high protein diet on body weight and co- 26. Cummings DE, Purnell JQ, Frayo RS, Schmidova K, Wisse BE, Weigle
morbidities associated with obesity. Br J Nutr 2012;108(suppl 2): DS. A preprandial rise in plasma ghrelin levels suggests a role in meal
S122–9. initiation in humans. Diabetes 2001;50:1714–9.
3. Te Morenga L, Mann J. The role of high-protein diets in body weight 27. Druce MR, Neary NM, Small CJ, Milton J, Monteiro M, Patterson M,
management and health. Br J Nutr 2012;108(suppl 2):S130–8. Ghatei MA, Bloom SR. Subcutaneous administration of ghrelin stim-
4. Dong JY, Zhang ZL, Wang PY, Qin LQ. Effects of high-protein diets on ulates energy intake in healthy lean human volunteers. Int J Obes
body weight, glycaemic control, blood lipids and blood pressure in (Lond) 2006;30:293–6.
type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J 28. Wren AM, Seal LJ, Cohen MA, Brynes AE, Frost GS, Murphy KG,
Nutr 2013;110:781–9. Dhillo WS, Ghatei MA, Bloom SR. Ghrelin enhances appetite and in-
5. Sacks FM, Bray GA, Carey VJ, Smith SR, Ryan DH, Anton SD, creases food intake in humans. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:5992.
McManus K, Champagne CM, Bishop LM, Laranjo N, et al. Com- 29. Leidy HJ, Mattes RD, Campbell WW. Effects of acute and chronic
parison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, protein intake on metabolism, appetite, and ghrelin during weight loss.
and carbohydrates. N Engl J Med 2009;360:859–73. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2007;15:1215–25.
6. Clifton PM, Keogh JB, Noakes M. Long-term effects of a high-protein 30. Belza A, Ritz C, Sorensen MQ, Holst JJ, Rehfeld JF, Astrup A. Con-
weight-loss diet. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:23–9. tribution of gastroenteropancreatic appetite hormones to protein-
7. Westerterp-Plantenga MS, Nieuwenhuizen A, Tome D, Soenen S, induced satiety. Am J Clin Nutr 2013;97:980–9.