Protein gives better fat loss results than Carbs

yarwell

"Participants (age = 45.4 ± 1.2 y; BMI = 32.6 ± 0.8 kg/m2; n = 130) were randomized to 2 energy-restricted diets (−500 kcal/d or −2093 kJ/d): PRO with 1.6 g·kg−1·d−1 protein and <170 g/d carbohydrates or CHO with 0.8 g·kg−1·d−1 protein, >220 g/d carbohydrates. " - PRO was 30 / 40 / 30 and CHO 15 / 55 / 30 as protein / carbs / fats. 1700 cals for women, 1900 for men.

"At 4 mo, the PRO group had lost 22% more fat mass (FM) (−5.6 ± 0.4 kg) than the CHO group (−4.6 ± 0.3 kg) but weight loss did not differ between groups (−8.2 ± 0.5 kg vs. −7.0 ± 0.5 kg; P = 0.10).

At 12 mo, the PRO group had more participants complete the study (64 vs. 45%, P < 0.05) with greater improvement in body composition; however, weight loss did not differ between groups."

http://www.nutrition.org/media/publications/podcasts/podcastLaymanfinal.mp3 <- Podcast

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/early/2009/01/21/jn.108.099440.abstract

sarahcuddle

Thanks for posting. Interesting. I'm usually over my protein count on MFP as I find it fills me up better and helps me stick to my calorie allowance.

BrianSharpe

Interesting results with only a 15% difference in carbs.

LexyDB

And in other ground breaking news, beer gets you drunk and that big, yellow thing in the sky is the sun.

High protein diets have always yielded better weight loss results than high carbohydrates due to the nature of the macronutrients.

BrianSharpe

High protein diets have always yielded better weight loss results than high carbohydrates due to the nature of the macronutrients.

The wight loss was the same, there was a higher fat loss observed in the study. The difference in "weight loss" which you incorrectly interpreted, between high protein and high carb diets is often related to the binding of glycogen to water (1g glycogen binds to 3 g water = water weight)

laddyboy

The interesting thing is the body can produce carbs from protein but can not produce protein from carbs.


Thanks for posting.

yarwell

Interesting results with only a 15% difference in carbs.

The geek in me says it was a 37.5% increase in carbs - 40 to 55 - but I know what you mean. The study wanted to stay within general dietary guidelines to avoid criticism.

BrianSharpe

Interesting results with only a 15% difference in carbs.

The geek in me says it was a 37.5% increase in carbs - 40 to 55 - but I know what you mean. The study wanted to stay within general dietary guidelines to avoid criticism.

LOL my math brain was obviously coffee deprived. 40% carbs vs 55%

Sidesteal

Results seem to be in line with common sense to a degree. One group was fed a quite low .8g/kg in protein while the other was fed double this amount and that group retained lean mass better.

Same weight loss would favor the idea the energy intake is what drives weight loss and that sufficient protein intake will help you retain lean mass.

VMarkV

High protein diets have always yielded better weight loss results than high carbohydrates due to the nature of the macronutrients.

The wight loss was the same, there was a higher fat loss observed in the study. The difference in "weight loss" which you incorrectly interpreted, between high protein and high carb diets is often related to the binding of glycogen to water (1g glycogen binds to 3 g water = water weight)

This and also protein has a higher thermic effect - more calories from protein are lost vs carbohydrates. Why do these studies always focus on weight? Body composition (not BMI, but LBM, BF, and water composition) and proportions are always much better measures

LexyDB

High protein diets have always yielded better weight loss results than high carbohydrates due to the nature of the macronutrients.

The wight loss was the same, there was a higher fat loss observed in the study. The difference in "weight loss" which you incorrectly interpreted, between high protein and high carb diets is often related to the binding of glycogen to water (1g glycogen binds to 3 g water = water weight)

I interpreted nothing incorrectly. I know the binding of water to glycogen (not carbohydrates if you want to get technical) consuming a greater amount of protein will yield results as it is the last of the three macronutrients used as fuel, subsequently last stored by the body as it is very inefficient as a fuel source compared to fats and carbohydrates. Incidentally, fats and glycogen are fuel not carbohydrates which are converted into glycogen.

Thermogenics of protein require up to 30% being used during consumption, carbohydrates half that at roughly 15% and fat only uses 3% for consumption which is the easiest of the three stored. Carbohydrates are the half way house, so to speak and both of these are stored by body with greater ease.

Glycogen is stored in the liver, muscles, and fat cells in hydrated form (three to four parts water) Now, the water binding will increase the overall weight as glycogen is dependent on water to be stored which also explains why people lose more weight in the first few weeks as the carbohydrate depletion also allows the binding water to be released.

Nothing was incorrect about my post.

BrianSharpe

Nothing was incorrect about my post.

You mean nothing was incorrect except the word "always" as the study in question clearly demonstrated that given the same number of calories, just different ratios, the weight loss was identical but the fat loss was higher in the high protein diet (which would lead one to the reasonable conclusion that there was loss of lean muscle mass in the higher carb version).

And, if you "want to get technical" I did say glycogen. :huh: