Protein-enriched meal replacements do not adversely affect liver, kidney or bone density: an outpatient randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is concern that recommending protein-enriched meal replacements as part of a weight management program could lead to changes in biomarkers of liver or renal function and reductions in bone density. This study was designed as a placebo-controlled clinical trial utilizing two isocaloric meal plans utilizing either a high protein-enriched (HP) or a standard protein (SP) meal replacement in an outpatient weight loss program.</p> <p>Subjects/methods</p> <p>100 obese men and women over 30 years of age with a body mass index (BMI) between 27 to 40 kg/m²were randomized to one of two isocaloric weight loss meal plans 1). HP group: providing 2.2 g protein/kg of lean body mass (LBM)/day or 2). SP group: providing 1.1 g protein/kg LBM/day. Meal replacement (MR) was used twice daily (one meal, one snack) for 3 months and then once a day for 9 months. Body weight, lipid profiles, liver function, renal function and bone density were measured at baseline and 12 months.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventy subjects completed the study. Both groups lost weight (HP -4.29 ± 5.90 kg vs. SP -4.66 ± 6.91 kg, p < 0.01) and there was no difference in weight loss observed between the groups at one year. There was no significant change noted in liver function [AST (HP -2.07 ± 10.32 U/L, p = 0.28; SP 0.27 ± 6.67 U/L, p = 0.820), ALT (HP -1.03 ± 10.08 U/L, p = 0.34; SP -2.6 ± 12.51 U/L, p = 0.24), bilirubin (HP 0.007 ± 0.33, U/L, p = 0.91; SP 0.07 ± 0.24 U/L, p = 0.120), alkaline phosphatase (HP 2.00 ± 9.07 U/L, p = 0.240; SP -2.12 ± 11.01 U/L, p = 0.280)], renal function [serum creatinine (HP 0.31 ± 1.89 mg/dL, p = 0.380; SP -0.05 ± 0.15 mg/dL, p = 0.060), urea nitrogen (HP 1.33 ± 4.68 mg/dL, p = 0.130; SP -0.24 ± 3.03 mg/dL, p = 0.650), 24 hour urine creatinine clearance (HP -0.02 ± 0.16 mL/min, p = 0.480; SP 1.18 ± 7.53 mL/min, p = 0.400), and calcium excretion (HP -0.41 ± 9.48 mg/24 hours, p = 0.830; SP -0.007 ± 6.76 mg/24 hours, p = 0.990)] or in bone mineral density by DEXA (HP 0.04 ± 0.19 g/cm², p = 0.210; SP -0.03 ± 0.17 g/cm², p = 0.320) in either group over one year.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These studies demonstrate that protein-enriched meals replacements as compared to standard meal replacements recommended for weight management do not have adverse effects on routine measures of liver function, renal function or bone density at one year. Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT01030354.</p

A controlled trial of protein enrichment of meal replacements for weight reduction with retention of lean body mass

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>While high protein diets have been shown to improve satiety and retention of lean body mass (LBM), this study was designed to determine effects of a protein-enriched meal replacement (MR) on weight loss and LBM retention by comparison to an isocaloric carbohydrate-enriched MR within customized diet plans utilizing MR to achieve high protein or standard protein intakes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Single blind, placebo-controlled, randomized outpatient weight loss trial in 100 obese men and women comparing two isocaloric meal plans utilizing a standard MR to which was added supplementary protein or carbohydrate powder. MR was used twice daily (one meal, one snack). One additional meal was included in the meal plan designed to achieve individualized protein intakes of either 1) 2.2 g protein/kg of LBM per day [high protein diet (HP)] or 2) 1.1 g protein/kg LBM/day standard protein diet (SP). LBM was determined using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Body weight, body composition, and lipid profiles were measured at baseline and 12 weeks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eighty-five subjects completed the study. Both HP and SP MR were well tolerated, with no adverse effects. There were no differences in weight loss at 12 weeks (-4.19 ± 0.5 kg for HP group and -3.72 ± 0.7 kg for SP group, p > 0.1). Subjects in the HP group lost significantly more fat weight than the SP group (HP = -1.65 ± 0.63 kg; SP = -0.64 ± 0.79 kg, P = 0.05) as estimated by BIA. There were no significant differences in lipids nor fasting blood glucose between groups, but within the HP group a significant decrease in cholesterol and LDL cholesterol was noted at 12 weeks. This was not seen in the SP group.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Higher protein MR within a higher protein diet resulted in similar overall weight loss as the standard protein MR plan over 12 weeks. However, there was significantly more fat loss in the HP group but no significant difference in lean body mass. In this trial, subject compliance with both the standard and protein-enriched MR strategy for weight loss may have obscured any effect of increased protein on weight loss demonstrated in prior weight loss studies using whole food diets.</p

Increasing Protein at the Expense of Carbohydrate in the Diet Down-Regulates Glucose Utilization as Glucose Sparing Effect in Rats

High protein (HP) diet could serve as a good strategy against obesity, provoking the changes in energy metabolic pathways. However, those modifications differ during a dietary adaptation. To better understand the mechanisms involved in effect of high protein diet (HP) on limiting adiposity in rats we studied in parallel the gene expression of enzymes involved in protein and energy metabolism and the profiles of nutrients oxidation. Eighty male Wistar rats were fed a normal protein diet (NP, 14% of protein) for one week, then either maintained on NP diet or assigned to a HP diet (50% of protein) for 1, 3, 6 and 14 days. mRNA levels of genes involved in carbohydrate and lipid metabolism were measured in liver, adipose tissues, kidney and muscles by real time PCR. Energy expenditure (EE) and substrate oxidation were measured by indirect calorimetry. Liver glycogen and plasma glucose and hormones were assayed. In liver, HP feeding 1) decreased mRNA encoding glycolysis enzymes (GK, L-PK) and lipogenesis enzymes(ACC, FAS), 2) increased mRNA encoding gluconeogenesis enzymes (PEPCK), 3) first lowered, then restored mRNA encoding glycogen synthesis enzyme (GS), 4) did not change mRNA encoding β-oxidation enzymes (CPT1, ACOX1, βHAD). Few changes were seen in other organs. In parallel, indirect calorimetry confirmed that following HP feeding, glucose oxidation was reduced and fat oxidation was stable, except during the 1st day of adaptation where lipid oxidation was increased. Finally, this study showed that plasma insulin was lowered and hepatic glucose uptake was decreased. Taken together, these results demonstrate that following HP feeding, CHO utilization was increased above the increase in carbohydrate intake while lipogenesis was decreased thus giving a potential explanation for the fat lowering effect of HP diets

ISSN exercise & sport nutrition review: research & recommendations

Sports nutrition is a constantly evolving field with hundreds of research papers published annually. For this reason, keeping up to date with the literature is often difficult. This paper is a five year update of the sports nutrition review article published as the lead paper to launch the JISSN in 2004 and presents a well-referenced overview of the current state of the science related to how to optimize training and athletic performance through nutrition. More specifically, this paper provides an overview of: 1.) The definitional category of ergogenic aids and dietary supplements; 2.) How dietary supplements are legally regulated; 3.) How to evaluate the scientific merit of nutritional supplements; 4.) General nutritional strategies to optimize performance and enhance recovery; and, 5.) An overview of our current understanding of the ergogenic value of nutrition and dietary supplementation in regards to weight gain, weight loss, and performance enhancement. Our hope is that ISSN members and individuals interested in sports nutrition find this review useful in their daily practice and consultation with their clients