Compared with an energy-restricted SP diet , an isocalorically prescribed HP diet provides modest benefits for reductions in body weight , FM , and triglycerides and for mitigating reductions in FFM and REE
BACKGROUND It is currently unclear whether altering the carbohydrate-to-protein ratio of low-fat , energy-restricted diets augments weight loss and cardiometabolic risk markers .
OBJECTIVE The objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta- analysis of studies that compared energy-restricted , isocaloric , high-protein , low-fat ( HP ) diets with st and ard-protein , low-fat ( SP ) diets on weight loss , body composition , resting energy expenditure ( REE ) , satiety and appetite , and cardiometabolic risk factors .
A controlled trial of protein enrichment of meal replacements for weight reduction with retention of lean body mass
Background While high protein diets have been shown to improve satiety and retention of lean body mass ( LBM ) , this study was design ed 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 st and ard protein intakes . Methods Single blind , placebo-controlled , r and omized outpatient weight loss trial in 100 obese men and women comparing two isocaloric meal plans utilizing a st and ard 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 design ed 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 st and ard 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 . Results 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 . Conclusion Higher protein MR within a higher protein diet result ed in similar overall weight loss as the st and ard 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 st and ard 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
Compared with an energy-restricted SP diet , an isocalorically prescribed HP diet provides modest benefits for reductions in body weight , FM , and triglycerides and for mitigating reductions in FFM and REE
BACKGROUND It is currently unclear whether altering the carbohydrate-to-protein ratio of low-fat , energy-restricted diets augments weight loss and cardiometabolic risk markers .
OBJECTIVE The objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta- analysis of studies that compared energy-restricted , isocaloric , high-protein , low-fat ( HP ) diets with st and ard-protein , low-fat ( SP ) diets on weight loss , body composition , resting energy expenditure ( REE ) , satiety and appetite , and cardiometabolic risk factors .