Diet Quality (macros) may affect Metabolism during Weight Loss
Options
EvgeniZyntx
Posts: 24,208 Member
Just ran across this research thanks to a recent MFP discussion and thought it was worth its own thread.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Conclusion: Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre–weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in REE and TEE that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet.
Interesting. It supports the idea that diet make-up affects CICO.
Average differences in TDEE are very surprising...
The decrease in REE from pre–weight-loss levels, measured by indirect calorimetry in the fasting state, was greatest for the low-fat diet (mean: –205 [–265 to –144] kcal/d), intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet (–166 [–227 to –106] kcal/d), and least for the very low-carbohydrate diet (−138 [–198 to –77] kcal/d;
The decrease in TEE, assessed using the doubly-labeled water method, also differed significantly by diet (mean [95% CI], −423 [–606 to –239] kcal/d for low fat; −297 [–479 to –115] kcal/d for low glycemic index; and −97 [–281 to 86] kcal/d for very low carbohydrate; overall P = .003; P for trend by glycemic load < .001). This result was not materially changed when substituting measured respiratory quotient (RQ) for calculated food quotient (FQ). Neither total physical activity nor time spent in moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity differed among the diets.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Conclusion: Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre–weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in REE and TEE that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet.
Interesting. It supports the idea that diet make-up affects CICO.
Average differences in TDEE are very surprising...
The decrease in REE from pre–weight-loss levels, measured by indirect calorimetry in the fasting state, was greatest for the low-fat diet (mean: –205 [–265 to –144] kcal/d), intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet (–166 [–227 to –106] kcal/d), and least for the very low-carbohydrate diet (−138 [–198 to –77] kcal/d;
The decrease in TEE, assessed using the doubly-labeled water method, also differed significantly by diet (mean [95% CI], −423 [–606 to –239] kcal/d for low fat; −297 [–479 to –115] kcal/d for low glycemic index; and −97 [–281 to 86] kcal/d for very low carbohydrate; overall P = .003; P for trend by glycemic load < .001). This result was not materially changed when substituting measured respiratory quotient (RQ) for calculated food quotient (FQ). Neither total physical activity nor time spent in moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity differed among the diets.
0
Replies
-
Interesting, thanks for sharing. I don’t have time to read in detail, but I though I’d share the macro breakdown of every diet for ease of discussion:
- low-fat diet (60% of energy from carbohydrate, 20% from fat, 20% from protein; high glycemic load)
- low–glycemic index diet (40% from carbohydrate, 40% from fat, and 20% from protein; moderate glycemic load),
- very low-carbohydrate diet (10% from carbohydrate, 60% from fat, and 30% from protein; low glycemic load)
One thing that concerns me is the higher protein content of the low-carb diet, and how that may have impacted the results. The identification of the effect of each macro is not precise.0 -
tagging to follow the discussion ..
was protein consumption the same in all three groups?0 -
tagging to follow the discussion ..
was protein consumption the same in all three groups?
I wondered that too, and the fact that it isn’t makes me wonder about the results.
Here is a breakdown of the diets, with g/day per 2000 cals, for those of you who aren’t bit fans of percentages:
0 -
tagging to follow the discussion ..
was protein consumption the same in all three groups?
I wondered that too, and the fact that it isn’t makes me wonder about the results.
Here is a breakdown of the diets, with g/day per 2000 cals, for those of you who aren’t bit fans of percentages:
thanks...
interesting the protein was higher in the low carb group. I would have thought they would have wanted to keep it constant for all groups...0 -
The "run-in diet" is what I'm doing long-term. Never tried the others, nor do I see any reason to try any of them after seeing the results of the study. 50g carbs a day? I think not.0
-
LyndseyLovesToLift wrote: »The "run-in diet" is what I'm doing long-term. Never tried the others, nor do I see any reason to try any of them after seeing the results of the study. 50g carbs a day? I think not.
for realz, I would not been able to lift the barbell on just 50 grams of carbs a day ...0 -
LyndseyLovesToLift wrote: »The "run-in diet" is what I'm doing long-term. Never tried the others, nor do I see any reason to try any of them after seeing the results of the study. 50g carbs a day? I think not.
for realz, I would not been able to lift the barbell on just 50 grams of carbs a day ...
Not with all the weight you put on it
.
50g of carbs is too low to be worth it for me also. That’s barely any ice cream.0 -
Thanks Emilia for the added elements.
I too look at these diet choices and say, "Nope". Low carbing certainly has issues for active performance, IMHO. But I think that this is interesting info in that it highlights more the importance of fat, and what happens on a low fat diet.0 -
LyndseyLovesToLift wrote: »The "run-in diet" is what I'm doing long-term. Never tried the others, nor do I see any reason to try any of them after seeing the results of the study. 50g carbs a day? I think not.
for realz, I would not been able to lift the barbell on just 50 grams of carbs a day ...
Not with all the weight you put on it.
50g of carbs is too low to be worth it for me also. That’s barely any ice cream.
It's almost exactly the amount of carbs I save for dessert every night. It would be hard to go carb-less for the rest of the day, because giving up my nightly ice cream is simply not gonna happen.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Thanks Emilia for the added elements.
I too look at this and say. Nope. Low carbing certainly has issues for active performance, IMHO. But I think that this is interesting info in that it highlights more the importance of fat, and what happens on a low fat diet.
any thoughts on why they did not keep protein consistent?0 -
@LyndseyLovesToLift Totally understand that. Some things are just not worth it.
@EvgeniZyntx I definitely agree that it’s interesting - thanks for posting it! I’m actually trying to eat more fat, so it’s a good reminder to be more diligent about it.0 -
Can I just tell you all, you made my day by analyzing the science. I see it so rarely on these boards. And I have to say, we know it affects CICO, the issue is more of the exactly how's.
I agree with the others though-the protein should not have been adjusted so greatly, however, the reasoning makes sense. The method's section discusses how each was developed and the reasoning.
"The run-in diet was consistent with the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range specified by the Institute of Medicine,15 with protein intake at the upper end of the range to enhance satiety during weight loss.16
The low-fat diet, which had a high glycemic load, was designed to reflect conventional recommendations to reduce dietary fat, emphasize whole grain products, and include a variety of vegetables and fruits.17
The low–glycemic index diet aimed to achieve a moderate glycemic load by replacing some grain products and starchy vegetables with sources of healthful fat and low–glycemic index vegetables, legumes, and fruits.
The low-fat and low–glycemic index diets had similar protein and fiber contents.
The very low-carbohydrate diet was modeled on the Atkins Diet and had a low glycemic load due to more severe restriction of carbohydrate. We provided 3 g of fiber with each meal (Metamucil, Procter & Gamble) during the very low-carbohydrate diet as recommended.11
To ensure micronutrient adequacy and minimize the influence of micronutrient differences among test diets, we gave each participant a daily multivitamin and mineral supplement."
I'm also concerned with the fact that they used a multivitamin, as several vitamins and minerals cancel each other out or enhance each other when presented together, and some of those affect weight loss. For example, calcium should not be taken together with iron, copper, or zinc, but calcium affects weight loss so much that the Mayo suggests taking calcium supplements if you are not a high dairy consumer. If the meals weren't planned carefully, this could also affect results, and since neither the menu nor micronutrient breakdown are available, we don't have much to go on.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Thanks Emilia for the added elements.
I too look at this and say. Nope. Low carbing certainly has issues for active performance, IMHO. But I think that this is interesting info in that it highlights more the importance of fat, and what happens on a low fat diet.
any thoughts on why they did not keep protein consistent?
Edit: see post above.0 -
coraborealis80 wrote: »Can I just tell you all, you made my day by analyzing the science. I see it so rarely on these boards. And I have to say, we know it affects CICO, the issue is more of the exactly how's.
I agree with the others though-the protein should not have been adjusted so greatly, however, the reasoning makes sense. The method's section discusses how each was developed and the reasoning.
"The run-in diet was consistent with the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range specified by the Institute of Medicine,15 with protein intake at the upper end of the range to enhance satiety during weight loss.16
The low-fat diet, which had a high glycemic load, was designed to reflect conventional recommendations to reduce dietary fat, emphasize whole grain products, and include a variety of vegetables and fruits.17
The low–glycemic index diet aimed to achieve a moderate glycemic load by replacing some grain products and starchy vegetables with sources of healthful fat and low–glycemic index vegetables, legumes, and fruits.
The low-fat and low–glycemic index diets had similar protein and fiber contents.
The very low-carbohydrate diet was modeled on the Atkins Diet and had a low glycemic load due to more severe restriction of carbohydrate. We provided 3 g of fiber with each meal (Metamucil, Procter & Gamble) during the very low-carbohydrate diet as recommended.11
To ensure micronutrient adequacy and minimize the influence of micronutrient differences among test diets, we gave each participant a daily multivitamin and mineral supplement."
I'm also concerned with the fact that they used a multivitamin, as several vitamins and minerals cancel each other out or enhance each other when presented together, and some of those affect weight loss. For example, calcium should not be taken together with iron, copper, or zinc, but calcium affects weight loss so much that the Mayo suggests taking calcium supplements if you are not a high dairy consumer. If the meals weren't planned carefully, this could also affect results, and since neither the menu nor micronutrient breakdown are available, we don't have much to go on.
Thanks for the breakdown of each diet.
My concern on not controlling for protein is that would that not skew the numbers in favor of the diet/groups with the higher protein intake? As protein causes your body to work harder to break foods down and is typically associated with a higher TEF and would also increase TEE...?
feel free to correct any flaws in my thinking....0 -
Thanks for the breakdown of each diet.
My concern on not controlling for protein is that would that not skew the numbers in favor of the diet/groups with the higher protein intake? As protein causes your body to work harder to break foods down and is typically associated with a higher TEF and would also increase TEE...?
feel free to correct any flaws in my thinking....
What I find odd is that they mention this but just dismiss it.The thermic effect of food (the increase in energy expenditure arising from digestive and metabolic processes) dissipates in the late postprandial period and would not affect REE measured in the fasting state. Because the thermic effect of food tends to be greater for carbohydrate than fat,24,25 it would also not explain the lower TEE on the low-fat diet. Although protein has a high thermic effect of food,16 the content of this macronutrient was the same for the low-fat and low–glycemic index diets and contributed only 10% more to total energy intake with the very low-carbohydrate diet compared with the other 2 diets.0 -
coraborealis80 wrote: »Can I just tell you all, you made my day by analyzing the science. I see it so rarely on these boards. And I have to say, we know it affects CICO, the issue is more of the exactly how's.
I agree with the others though-the protein should not have been adjusted so greatly, however, the reasoning makes sense. The method's section discusses how each was developed and the reasoning.
"The run-in diet was consistent with the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range specified by the Institute of Medicine,15 with protein intake at the upper end of the range to enhance satiety during weight loss.16
The low-fat diet, which had a high glycemic load, was designed to reflect conventional recommendations to reduce dietary fat, emphasize whole grain products, and include a variety of vegetables and fruits.17
The low–glycemic index diet aimed to achieve a moderate glycemic load by replacing some grain products and starchy vegetables with sources of healthful fat and low–glycemic index vegetables, legumes, and fruits.
The low-fat and low–glycemic index diets had similar protein and fiber contents.
The very low-carbohydrate diet was modeled on the Atkins Diet and had a low glycemic load due to more severe restriction of carbohydrate. We provided 3 g of fiber with each meal (Metamucil, Procter & Gamble) during the very low-carbohydrate diet as recommended.11
To ensure micronutrient adequacy and minimize the influence of micronutrient differences among test diets, we gave each participant a daily multivitamin and mineral supplement."
I'm also concerned with the fact that they used a multivitamin, as several vitamins and minerals cancel each other out or enhance each other when presented together, and some of those affect weight loss. For example, calcium should not be taken together with iron, copper, or zinc, but calcium affects weight loss so much that the Mayo suggests taking calcium supplements if you are not a high dairy consumer. If the meals weren't planned carefully, this could also affect results, and since neither the menu nor micronutrient breakdown are available, we don't have much to go on.
Thanks for the breakdown of each diet.
My concern on not controlling for protein is that would that not skew the numbers in favor of the diet/groups with the higher protein intake? As protein causes your body to work harder to break foods down and is typically associated with a higher TEF and would also increase TEE...?
feel free to correct any flaws in my thinking....
Possibly, but we can do a rough calc on the TEF of the diets:
TEF
protein is 20-30%
fat 2-5%
carbs 5-10%
That diet with low carbs and higher protein actually has a lower TEF as its 60% fat.0 -
Thanks for the breakdown of each diet.
My concern on not controlling for protein is that would that not skew the numbers in favor of the diet/groups with the higher protein intake? As protein causes your body to work harder to break foods down and is typically associated with a higher TEF and would also increase TEE...?
feel free to correct any flaws in my thinking....
What I find odd is that they mention this but just dismiss it.The thermic effect of food (the increase in energy expenditure arising from digestive and metabolic processes) dissipates in the late postprandial period and would not affect REE measured in the fasting state. Because the thermic effect of food tends to be greater for carbohydrate than fat,24,25 it would also not explain the lower TEE on the low-fat diet. Although protein has a high thermic effect of food,16 the content of this macronutrient was the same for the low-fat and low–glycemic index diets and contributed only 10% more to total energy intake with the very low-carbohydrate diet compared with the other 2 diets.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »coraborealis80 wrote: »Can I just tell you all, you made my day by analyzing the science. I see it so rarely on these boards. And I have to say, we know it affects CICO, the issue is more of the exactly how's.
I agree with the others though-the protein should not have been adjusted so greatly, however, the reasoning makes sense. The method's section discusses how each was developed and the reasoning.
"The run-in diet was consistent with the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range specified by the Institute of Medicine,15 with protein intake at the upper end of the range to enhance satiety during weight loss.16
The low-fat diet, which had a high glycemic load, was designed to reflect conventional recommendations to reduce dietary fat, emphasize whole grain products, and include a variety of vegetables and fruits.17
The low–glycemic index diet aimed to achieve a moderate glycemic load by replacing some grain products and starchy vegetables with sources of healthful fat and low–glycemic index vegetables, legumes, and fruits.
The low-fat and low–glycemic index diets had similar protein and fiber contents.
The very low-carbohydrate diet was modeled on the Atkins Diet and had a low glycemic load due to more severe restriction of carbohydrate. We provided 3 g of fiber with each meal (Metamucil, Procter & Gamble) during the very low-carbohydrate diet as recommended.11
To ensure micronutrient adequacy and minimize the influence of micronutrient differences among test diets, we gave each participant a daily multivitamin and mineral supplement."
I'm also concerned with the fact that they used a multivitamin, as several vitamins and minerals cancel each other out or enhance each other when presented together, and some of those affect weight loss. For example, calcium should not be taken together with iron, copper, or zinc, but calcium affects weight loss so much that the Mayo suggests taking calcium supplements if you are not a high dairy consumer. If the meals weren't planned carefully, this could also affect results, and since neither the menu nor micronutrient breakdown are available, we don't have much to go on.
Thanks for the breakdown of each diet.
My concern on not controlling for protein is that would that not skew the numbers in favor of the diet/groups with the higher protein intake? As protein causes your body to work harder to break foods down and is typically associated with a higher TEF and would also increase TEE...?
feel free to correct any flaws in my thinking....
Possibly, but we can do a rough calc on the TEF of the diets:
TEF
protein is 20-30%
fat 2-5%
carbs 5-10%
That diet with low carbs and higher protein actually has a lower TEF as its 60% fat.
interesting..
thanks..
0 -
Thanks for the breakdown of each diet.
My concern on not controlling for protein is that would that not skew the numbers in favor of the diet/groups with the higher protein intake? As protein causes your body to work harder to break foods down and is typically associated with a higher TEF and would also increase TEE...?
feel free to correct any flaws in my thinking....
What I find odd is that they mention this but just dismiss it.The thermic effect of food (the increase in energy expenditure arising from digestive and metabolic processes) dissipates in the late postprandial period and would not affect REE measured in the fasting state. Because the thermic effect of food tends to be greater for carbohydrate than fat,24,25 it would also not explain the lower TEE on the low-fat diet. Although protein has a high thermic effect of food,16 the content of this macronutrient was the same for the low-fat and low–glycemic index diets and contributed only 10% more to total energy intake with the very low-carbohydrate diet compared with the other 2 diets.
Hmm, so 10% more available energy? And ... <looks at graphs> 10% higher TDEE?!
Homeostasis, anyone?0 -
Interesting. People tend to have a range (sometimes quite wide) that they maintain at. If they were getting more calories net after accounting for TEF, this may have very well have had an effect on their REE and TEE. It would be interesting to see this accounted for in a follow up or future study, and what effects that would have on the results.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Thanks for the breakdown of each diet.
My concern on not controlling for protein is that would that not skew the numbers in favor of the diet/groups with the higher protein intake? As protein causes your body to work harder to break foods down and is typically associated with a higher TEF and would also increase TEE...?
feel free to correct any flaws in my thinking....
What I find odd is that they mention this but just dismiss it.The thermic effect of food (the increase in energy expenditure arising from digestive and metabolic processes) dissipates in the late postprandial period and would not affect REE measured in the fasting state. Because the thermic effect of food tends to be greater for carbohydrate than fat,24,25 it would also not explain the lower TEE on the low-fat diet. Although protein has a high thermic effect of food,16 the content of this macronutrient was the same for the low-fat and low–glycemic index diets and contributed only 10% more to total energy intake with the very low-carbohydrate diet compared with the other 2 diets.
Hmm, so 10% more available energy? And ... <looks at graphs> 10% higher TDEE?!
Homeostasis, anyone?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions