'Eating foods rich in amino acids could be as good for the heart as stopping smoking'

[Mrpb]

After all the negative press protein has been getting I thought I'd share some positive information.

Study: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/earl...14700.abstract

Amino Acid Intake Is Inversely Associated with Arterial Stiffness and Central Blood Pressure in Women1,2

Abstract

Background: Although data suggest that intake of total protein, and specific amino acids (AAs) reduces blood pressure, data on other cardiovascular disease risk factors are limited.

Objective: We examined associations between intake of AAs with known mechanistic links to cardiovascular health and direct measures of arterial stiffness, central blood pressure, and atherosclerosis.

Methods: In a cross-sectional study of 1898 female twins aged 18–75 y from the TwinsUK registry, intake of 7 cardioprotective AAs (arginine, cysteine, glutamic acid, glycine, histidine, leucine, and tyrosine) was calculated from food-frequency questionnaires. Direct measures of arterial stiffness and atherosclerosis included central systolic blood pressure (cSBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), augmentation index (AI), pulse wave velocity (PWV), and intima–media thickness (IMT). ANCOVA was used to assess the associations between endpoints of arterial stiffness and intake (per quintile), adjusting for potential confounders.

Results: In multivariable analyses, higher intake of total protein and 7 potentially cardioprotective AAs was associated with lower cSBP, MAP, and PWV. Higher intake of glutamic acid, leucine, and tyrosine was most strongly associated with PWV, with respective differences of −0.4 ± 0.2 m/s (P-trend = 0.02), −0.4 ± 0.2 m/s (P-trend = 0.03), and −0.4 ± 0.2 m/s (P-trend = 0.03), comparing extreme quintiles. There was a significant interaction between AA intake and protein source, and higher intake of AAs from vegetable sources was associated with lower central blood pressure and AI. Higher intake of glutamic acid, leucine, and tyrosine from animal sources was associated with lower PWV.

Conclusions: These data provide evidence to suggest that intake of several AAs is associated with cardiovascular benefits beyond blood pressure reduction in healthy women. The magnitude of the observed associations was similar to those previously reported for other lifestyle factors. Increasing intake of these AAs could be an important and readily achievable way to reduce cardiovascular disease risk.

Article: https://www.uea.ac.uk/about/-/uea-re...ascular-health


And Stuart Phillips on high protein diets:

The biggest myth is that ‘overconsumption’ of protein is going to do something bad to your kidneys or your bones. The evidence on renal health and high protein diets is quite clear: if you don’t have kidney problems then more protein is not going to hurt your kidney function! Even the WHO/FAO and the US/Canadian DRI reports agree on this. Insofar as bone health is concerned so long as you’re getting adequate calcium and vitamin D protein will actually actively enhance bone formation and will NOT promote bone loss. It’s time to put these big myths to bed in my view. Also, excess protein is not converted to fat since only 2 amino acids can lead to fat synthesis!

[Gxp23]

Would rep but on spread.

[sevenhm]

[nakkiz]

Really interesting. Thanks for sharing this.

[Domicron]

Would rep but on spread.

maybe there's a glitch? he's on spread with me too...

anyhow 3 or 4 years ago i stopped smoking, does that mean i can eat less protein and still reap the benefits? or did i misinterpret the research?

[DarthInvadeHer]

Also, excess protein is not converted to fat since only 2 amino acids can lead to fat synthesis!


Is he saying that excess calories (over maintenance) that come from solely protein does not lead to fat gain?

[APipeDream]

Also, excess protein is not converted to fat since only 2 amino acids can lead to fat synthesis!

Is he saying that excess calories (over maintenance) that come from solely protein does not lead to fat gain?

Interested in clarification on this too, cuz that's how I read it as well.

[sevenhm]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777747/

CONCLUSIONS:Among persons living in a controlled setting, calories alone account for the increase in fat; protein affected energy expenditure and storage of lean body mass, but not body fat storage.

[chemo29]

supplements companies be like: GREAT NEWS, this will justify amino spiking

[boo99]

thanks Mrpb for this!

rep when off spread

[Mrpb]

Also, excess protein is not converted to fat since only 2 amino acids can lead to fat synthesis!


Is he saying that excess calories (over maintenance) that come from solely protein does not lead to fat gain?

Theoretically over eating on protein could still lead to other macro nutrients being stored as body fat.

However, in free living human beings this rarely seems to happen.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/wp-con...Ellerbroek.pdf
http://www.jissn.com/content/11/1/19

[tara19]

Thanks for the read

[bartolomei]

Also, excess protein is not converted to fat since only 2 amino acids can lead to fat synthesis!


Is he saying that excess calories (over maintenance) that come from solely protein does not lead to fat gain?

All amino acids, except lysine and leucine, can be converted into glucose, which can be converted into energy. This means you will need less carbohydrates and fats to maintain your calorie needs, and their excess, will be stored as body fat.

[Mrpb]

All amino acids, except lysine and leucine, can be converted into glucose, which, if in excess of calorie needs, is converted into body fat. So, proteins in excess of calories will make you fat just like carbohydrates or fat in excess of calories. Where would the energy from protein go otherwise?

With people in a metabolic ward and without resistance training, then yes.

In real life combined, combined with resistance training? Maybe not.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/wp-con...Ellerbroek.pdf
http://www.jissn.com/content/11/1/19

[bartolomei]

Doesn't seem to happen in real life when it's combined with proper resistance training.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/wp-con...Ellerbroek.pdf
http://www.jissn.com/content/11/1/19

Now we can critique those studies all we want but the premise is pretty clear in both.

If you spend 2,500 Calories every day and you consume 2,500 Calories from carbohydrates and fat, and then additionally 500 Calories from protein, what will happen with this 500 Calorie excess from protein?

[Mrpb]

If you spend 2,500 Calories in a day, no matter how, and you consume 2,500 Calories from carbohydrates and fat, and then additionally 500 Calories from protein, what will happen with this 500 Calorie excess from protein?

While an interesting question, it's not really what those studies are about.

What they show is that people who ate a significant amount of extra protein on top of their normal diet, which contained carbs, protein and fat did not gain any fat.

If you'd like to speculate on the mechanisms, there's a thread where several people (including me) have done so: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=168041003

[Mrpb]

They say:
"In this investigation, subjects consumed a diet that exceeded their normal caloric intake by 954 kcal/d."
and
"This is the first investigation in resistance-trained individuals which demonstrates that a hypercaloric high protein diet does not contribute to a fat mass gain"

Yes and I also included the second study which showed a similar effect.

So, 954 Calories/day in excess did not result in fat mass gain? I don't believe this.

The study did not measure expenditure in any way so I would not draw such conclusions.

I don't really care about the conclusion the researchers draw. That's all subjective. I care about the data. The facts.

[bartolomei]

Yes and I also included the second study which showed a similar effect.



The study did not measure expenditure in any way so I would not draw such conclusions.

I don't really care about the conclusion the researchers draw. That's all subjective. I care about the data. The facts.

I just deleted my above post, because it was 800 Calories they have consumed in excess in this study, not 954.
http://www.jissn.com/content/11/1/19

Still, 800 Calories/day in excess for 8 weeks and no fat gain? I have a hard time to believe this. Where would 800 calories go? I could believe if other groups of researchers would perform similar experiments with similar results.

The 954 Cal excess is from another study you mentioned:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777747/

As I understand it shows the opposite results than the 1st one:
"In summary, weight gain when eating a low protein diet (5% of energy from protein) was blunted compared with weight gain when eating a normal protein diet (15% of energy from protein) with the same number of extra calories."

And they say:
"The key finding of this study is that calories are more important than protein while consuming excess amounts of energy with respect to increases in body fat"

[Mrpb]

Still, 800 Calories/day in excess for 8 weeks and no fat gain? I have a hard time to believe this. Where would 800 calories go? I could believe if other groups of researchers would perform similar experiments with similar results.

Well like I said in my previous comment, they did not measure expenditure in any way so the idea that it was in 'excess' is pure speculation.

[bartolomei]

Well like I said in my previous comment, they did not measure expenditure in any way so the idea that it was in 'excess' is pure speculation.

Yes, from what I understand they did not measure calories burnt and consumed: they just instructed participants to eat a certain diet and to have a certain exercise regime, but they did not control or measure any of them. Then they just believed them they were eating and training as they reported. As much as you expect they all reported with a great care, without actually measuring calorie input and output they cannot properly calculate the results.

They themselves claim calories were in excess, though:
"The current investigation found no changes in body weight, fat mass, or fat free mass in the high protein diet group. This occurred in spite of the fact that they consumed over 800 calories more per day for eight weeks.

[Mrpb]

Yes, from what I understand they did not measure anything actually: they just instructed participants to eat a certain diet and to have a certain exercise regime, but they did not control or measure any of them.

Well during the study they were monitored by one of the researchers through Myfitnesspal. She had access to their food logs and checked daily what they ate and if they complied to the instructions.

They themselves claim calories were in excess, though:
"The current investigation found no changes in body weight, fat mass, or fat free mass in the high protein diet group. This occurred in spite of the fact that they consumed over 800 calories more per day for eight weeks.

Yeah they do but I don't believe that either. The more plausible mechanism IMO is that the extra protein increased expenditure. Probably a combination of bodily processes, NEAT and exercise.