New study re: macro composition and RMR/TDEE

[Nimm]

Anyone else seen this yet?

Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance

Just reading through this now, but it seems to be claiming an advantage in both RMR and TDEE for low-CHO diets after some weight loss. The RMR difference was small and in line with what you'd expect considering that the low-CHO diet had 10% more protein than the low-fat and low-GI diets. The claimed difference in TDEE was around 300 though, which is significant. To my amateur eye it seems pretty well-designed and well controlled, apart from the protein mismatch.

Is this old news already? Anyone else look at it more closely?

[sawoobley]

Will look at this week end.

[Kirra]

Will read tomorrow. Tagged for later.

[dukend]

If you guys had avi's you'd read it now.

[Joseph1990]

A controlled 3-way crossover design involving 21 overweight and obese young adults.

Does this not make the entire study irrelevant for those of us who will never become obese.

[mattypoole]

Sounds like it relates to what I've read about protein being more thermogenic and as a result potentially having an energy value that in reality is less than 4 kcal/g (seen JasonDB amongst others discussing aspects of this here previously in a response to a "is a calorie really a calorie?" type thread).

[samsonkine]

Anyone else seen this yet?

Just reading through this now, but it seems to be claiming an advantage in both RMR and TDEE for low-CHO diets after some weight loss. The RMR difference was small and in line with what you'd expect considering that the low-CHO diet had 10% more protein than the low-fat and low-GI diets. The claimed difference in TDEE was around 300 though, which is significant. To my amateur eye it seems pretty well-designed and well controlled, apart from the protein mismatch.

Is this old news already? Anyone else look at it more closely?

It seems consistent with metabolism biochemistry, it requires considerable amount of energy to convert fat/protein into metabolites to be used throughout the body compared to glucose metabolism which only requires 2 ATP to be activated. Since the brain, one of the most energy hungry organs, does not have plentiful supply of glucose it has to rely on ketone bodies and to produce ketone bodies requires much more energy to be synthesized than activating glucose. So, these results may not be so surprising.

I haven't read too much into their discussion, perhaps they have discussed what I have said and so my explanation may not be the case. I'll read it closer when I have more free time.

[JasonDB]

Sounds like it relates to what I've read about protein being more thermogenic and as a result potentially having an energy value that in reality is less than 4 kcal/g (seen JasonDB amongst others discussing aspects of this here previously in a response to a "is a calorie really a calorie?" type thread).

Bingo. It is well understood that protein calories are not utilized as effeciently as fat or carb calories and their true thermic value is not the same when the body uses it. Thus increasing protein intake increases food induced thermogenosis slightly for the same caloric intake. The same results would have been seen had they raised both protein and carbs and lowered fat intake. Increasing protein does not by default make a diet "low carb" as one could just as easily replace fat with protein to get the same effect.

They should instead not be idiots and claim "high protein diets" do this and not "low carb diets" do. I swear I love doctors and PhD's but some of them seem to lack the ability to look at multiple variables and determine what the most logical cause of an effect is.

[DDon1996]

Bingo. It is well understood that protein calories are not utilized as effeciently as fat or carb calories and their true thermic value is not the same when the body uses it. Thus increasing protein intake increases food induced thermogenosis slightly for the same caloric intake. The same results would have been seen had they raised both protein and carbs and lowered fat intake. Increasing protein does not by default make a diet "low carb" as one could just as easily replace fat with protein to get the same effect.

They should instead not be idiots and claim "high protein diets" do this and not "low carb diets" do. I swear I love doctors and PhD's but some of them seem to lack the ability to look at multiple variables and determine what the most logical cause of an effect is.

Didn't look at the study yet, but this.

[Dexter3000]

These kind of results have been found before. But in the end though, as I see it, all it potentially changes is the number of kcal you can account to 1 gram of protein (it takes more energy to use them - so they provide less net energy).

So if we would adjust the 4kcal per gram of protein to something lower we would -on a controlled diet- eat slightly more food (protein) for the same amount of calories, compared to what we use now.

Thus, if you eat a high protein diet you might in fact be consuming slightly less NET energy than you thought. However, is this relevant? if you try to cut fat for example, you work with an initial calorie intake.. and adjust. The actual number doesn't matter.

So, big deal? IMO only if you switch from a high carb/fat and low protein diet to a high protein diet, where the discrepancy in kcal per gram of protein is significant enough to actually alter your calorie intake based on the macro-composition of the diet.


Thoughts?

[rushki]

Big deal? IMO only if you switch from a high carb/fat and low protein diet to a high protein diet, where the discrepancy in kcal per gram of protein is significant.

Thoughts?

If this is indeed all true... we'd still be consistent with our gains/ losses because +/- 10-20g isn't going to make us into a Ronnie Coleman or a fitness model or anything for that matter... In essence if you're anabolic, you're anabolic... and by that I mean you have enough protein in your system so that you have positive nitrogen balance (anabolic). Bodybuilding speaking-wise... my .02 broscience cents.

but in its entirety this study is weak. Lame group, small group, ridiculous cause v. effect interpretations.

[ThatWei]

Quick glance
- Small sample
- Obese sample (tend to have issues metabolizing CHO)
- Unknown whether the changes in RMR/EE resulted in significant weight/fat loss differences between diets (Maybe I missed it)
- If they really wanted to compare low fat/low CHO they should have matched protein
- Test diet duration
- Limited application in real life (at least to us), even if a low CHO diet is superior for health outcomes it does not mean all patients will stick with the diet


OT but does blood pressure look a bit low to anyone else? Even before the treatments the average was 116/67, am I reading this correctly? (Then again, small sample)

[brendbro]

Quick glance
- Small sample
- Obese sample (tend to have issues metabolizing CHO)
- Unknown whether the changes in RMR/EE resulted in significant weight/fat loss differences between diets (Maybe I missed it)
- If they really wanted to compare low fat/low CHO they should have matched protein
- Test diet duration
- Limited application in real life (at least to us), even if a low CHO diet is superior for health outcomes it does not mean all patients will stick with the diet


OT but does blood pressure look a bit low to anyone else? Even before the treatments the average was 116/67, am I reading this correctly? (Then again, small sample)

in the end, regardless of everything else this seems to be the key variable that should have been matched between groups

[WonderPug]

The study data indicates that higher intake of protein and fat (basically, coming closer to meeting sufficiency) was associated with a better outcome than intaking less sufficient amounts of protein and fat, and thus they concluded that CHO intake is the causative factor.

/facepalm

[samsonkine]

Does this not make the entire study irrelevant for those of us who will never become obese.

The subjects of this study seems to have had normal metabolism and overall bodily function in-line with non-obese persons so using obese subjects may not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is not valid for non-obese populations.

Bingo. It is well understood that protein calories are not utilized as effeciently as fat or carb calories and their true thermic value is not the same when the body uses it. Thus increasing protein intake increases food induced thermogenosis slightly for the same caloric intake. The same results would have been seen had they raised both protein and carbs and lowered fat intake. Increasing protein does not by default make a diet "low carb" as one could just as easily replace fat with protein to get the same effect.

The evidence is in contrary to what you are saying. The difference in the thermic effect, due to differences in protein intake between the low-fat and very low CHO groups, was argued to not have been able to account for a major portion to such a significant difference in TEE. At most, the thermic effect would only have been 37-64 kcal (20-35% of calorie intake of protein as per the results of previous studies on thermogenic effects of protein).

Now the issue of protein has been discussed, the low fat diet had a lower TEE than the low glycemic index diet. If we assume that CHO has a higher thermogenic effect than fat and that changes in TEE is dependent in the differences in thermogenic effects alone, then we expect a higher TEE in the low fat diet than the low glycemic index diet. However, the contrary was found in this study. Thus, there must be other metabolic factors that determines the differences in TEE than the differences in thermogenic effects of food alone.

Quick glance
- Small sample
- Obese sample (tend to have issues metabolizing CHO)
- Unknown whether the changes in RMR/EE resulted in significant weight/fat loss differences between diets (Maybe I missed it)
- If they really wanted to compare low fat/low CHO they should have matched protein
- Test diet duration
- Limited application in real life (at least to us), even if a low CHO diet is superior for health outcomes it does not mean all patients will stick with the diet


OT but does blood pressure look a bit low to anyone else? Even before the treatments the average was 116/67, am I reading this correctly? (Then again, small sample)

On the issue of an obese sample, they did select for those that passed certain health criteria. It seems they have selected for those that were considered in the normal range for various physiological factors. This also means that the BP of the subjects were most likely selected to be of the normal range in which the mean 116/67 is in.

The body weight differences in the three diets didn't differ significantly.

For the issue of matching protein, the significant differences in TEE between the low fat and the very low CHO groups could not be significantly attributable to the differences in protein intake. They argue that since the difference in energy of contribution of protein only differed by 10%, thus the thermogic effect of protein did not significantly contribute to the differences in TEE. Since the thermogenic effect of protein is around 20% to 35% of the calorie intake, then only about 37-64 kcal would have been contributed. So they attribute the significant differences between the low fat and very low CHO groups to the differences in CHO and fat intake.

As for the application, I think it has applications to the bodybuilding world but not to average persons. Many bodybuilders or athletes has the discipline and motivation to stick to diets so this may actually be useful. I wouldn't suggest the very low CHO diet to any average folk though, in any case they did say the diet wasn't made for long-term applications.

The study data indicates that higher intake of protein and fat (basically, coming closer to meeting sufficiency) was associated with a better outcome than intaking less sufficient amounts of protein and fat, and thus they concluded that CHO intake is the causative factor.
/facepalm

Like I have said above, they argue that the increase in protein did not significantly contribute to TEE. Furthermore, they have not claimed that CHO intake is the causative factor and have indicated that the large differences in CHO and Fat intake may be the determining factor in the significant difference in TEE.

Also, they have found no significant difference between the low fat and low glycemic index diets indicating that there must be a large enough difference in both CHO and fat intake for a significant difference in TEE to occur.

These kind of results have been found before. But in the end though, as I see it, all it potentially changes is the number of kcal you can account to 1 gram of protein (it takes more energy to use them - so they provide less net energy).

Thoughts?

The contention that protein provides less than a net of 4kcal/g is well established in the literature so this wasn't the main focus of the study rather the focus was if there was a significant difference between low fat and very low CHO diets which seems the results supports. This study is a great contribution to nutrition knowledge base and adds much more.

[Dexter3000]

^ did you contribute to the study?

[JasonDB]

^^^ interesting... not sure what to make of it as studies have generally found this doesn't impact body composition (carbs vs fat intake on the same caloric intake) and I know for me that I can train much harder on a higher carb isocaloric diet than a higher fat one (thus preserving more muscle tissue when cutting due to improved training workload). I don't really know what the actual implications of this study are in light of what you have stated, nor the practical application for athletes (I could give a **** less about the health and body composition of those who chose to not train and waste away).

[PhiSig2298]

TL;DR.. can someone just tell me what I should be eating?

[Nimm]

TL;DR.. can someone just tell me what I should be eating?

The answer hasn't changed.

[samsonkine]

^^^ interesting... not sure what to make of it as studies have generally found this doesn't impact body composition (carbs vs fat intake on the same caloric intake) and I know for me that I can train much harder on a higher carb isocaloric diet than a higher fat one (thus preserving more muscle tissue when cutting due to improved training workload). I don't really know what the actual implications of this study are in light of what you have stated, nor the practical application for athletes (I could give a **** less about the health and body composition of those who chose to not train and waste away).

From what I see in the results of the study and their discussions, the implications seems to be two-fold.

For reference in my discussion, the macro ratios were as follows, Diet(CHO:Fat:Protein):

• Low Fat(60:20:20)
• Low Glycemic Index[GI](40:40:20)
• Very Low Carbohydrate (10:60:30).

Also, I would like to note that the Very Low CHO diet was modeled after the Atkin's diet so this study may have implications on diets modeled on it.

Cutting/Weight Loss
It seems to be more beneficial if a low GI diet is adopted compared to either low fat or very low CHO as the low GI diet is associated with increased TEE and no significant difference in cortisol levels, which may be beneficial in preserving muscle mass during cutting.

From the study:

• The Low GI Diet and the Very Low CHO Diet didn't show a significant difference in TEE. But the Low Fat Diet and Low GI Diet did.
• However, the Very Low CHO Diet showed a significant increase in cortisol and C-Reactive Protein (CRP) levels. The increased cortisol may contribute to increased rate muscle loss, some muscle loss is usually associated with cutting. Furthermore, the increased CRP levels may increase risks for strokes, vascular diseases, etc.
• It was found that the Low Fat and Low GI Diet did not have a significant difference in cortisol. This reason and the significantly increased TEE in the Low GI diet compared to the Low Fat diet forms the basis of my discussion on the implications on cutting.
• On another note, since the low GI and the Very Low CHO diets had the highest TEE, smaller weight gains are expected if the individual went over maintenance. However, the recommendation is still to adopt a low GI diet over the Very Low CHO over concerns of cortisol and CRP levels.
  

Bulking
From this study alone, it seems that a Low Fat Diet is advantageous over the low GI diet and Very Low CHO diet because of significantly lower TEE, lower cortisol levels, and higher serum leptin levels in the Low Fat Diet allowing easier weight gains.

From the study:

• The Low Fat Diet had the lowest TEE compared to the two diets, so it may be easier to gain weight as you require less calories to get your desired caloric excess.
• Also the Low Fat Diet actually lead to a significantly lower cortisol levels than the other two diets and even before the different diets was applied. This lowered cortisol level indicates that a Low Fat Diet may be useful in gaining more lean mass.
• IT was found that the Low Fat Diet had the highest serum leptin concentrations which is predictive of weight gain as shown by previous studies.

[Andrew_S]

I read through it and came to the conclusion that roses are red, and violets are blue, I eat lots of ice cream, and you should too.

[DaBubzy]

ITT: ******* samsonkine, thread hijacker, shares thoughts on link to study that he adamantly believes in whilst resisting criticism from smart pplz

[sawoobley]

From what I see in the results of the study and their discussions, the implications seems to be two-fold.

For reference in my discussion, the macro ratios were as follows, Diet(CHO:Fat:Protein):

• Low Fat(60:20:20)
• Low Glycemic Index[GI](40:40:20)
• Very Low Carbohydrate (10:60:30).

Also, I would like to note that the Very Low CHO diet was modeled after the Atkin's diet so this study may have implications on diets modeled on it.

Any idea what the macros are in grams? Are we talking about inadequate levels of protein versus adequate levels?

[Nimm]

Any idea what the macros are in grams? Are we talking about inadequate levels of protein versus adequate levels?

There wasn't a standard amount. After the weight loss portion of the study, they gave the subjects eucaloric diets and made sure they were all weight-stable. The TDEE averaged in the 2700-3000 calorie range, so the 20% Protein diets would have been ~135g for a group that averaged 200 to 205 lbs, and probably wasn't very active.

ITT: ******* OP shares link to study that he adamantly believes in whilst resisting criticism from smart pplz

ITT: People have trouble identifying the OP

[SumDumGoi]

This was also posted in the main nutrition forum so I will just link my response

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post907208203

[DaBubzy]

ITT: People have trouble identifying the OP

lol that's by bad, I was referring to samsonkine.


apology reps