High protein intake not fattening. CICO ?
Options
yarwell
Posts: 10,477 Member
Thirty healthy resistance-trained individuals were split into a control group (CON) and high protein intake (HP). The latter were told to increase protein intake while keeping fats & carbs the same. http://www.jissn.com/content/11/1/19/abstract (full paper available free PDF www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-11-19.pdf )
The HP group consumed on average 307 ± 69 grams of protein compared to 138 ± 42 in the CON. They mixed men and women so the variability is bigger than it might have been.
At the end of the trial the HP group averaged an intake of 4.2 grams protein per kg of body weight, or 5 grams per kg of lean body mass / fat free mass ( 2.3 grams protein per lb of LBM / FFM). These averages are calculated from the averages in the paper ie average protein divided by average weight.
The only statistically significant changes to food intake was in protein and calories in the HP group - 800 calories a day extra of which most came from 145g extra protein. Over the 8 week period "there were no significant changes over time or between groups for body weight, fat mass, fat free mass, or percent body fat".
"Significant" here means statistically significant - there was for example a small decrease of 0.2kg in the average fat mass (BodPod) of the HP group, but with +/- 2.2 kg standard deviation this could have been entirely by chance. Similarly the average weight of both groups increased - by 0.8 and 1.7kg for CON and HP resp but the SD is bigger than either change. Never combine men and women in studies of this type, it screws the stats up.
So 800 calories/day * 8 weeks should have resulted in 12.8 lbs (5.8 kg) of weight gain in the HP group but this simply failed to turn up. Discuss.
The HP group consumed on average 307 ± 69 grams of protein compared to 138 ± 42 in the CON. They mixed men and women so the variability is bigger than it might have been.
At the end of the trial the HP group averaged an intake of 4.2 grams protein per kg of body weight, or 5 grams per kg of lean body mass / fat free mass ( 2.3 grams protein per lb of LBM / FFM). These averages are calculated from the averages in the paper ie average protein divided by average weight.
The only statistically significant changes to food intake was in protein and calories in the HP group - 800 calories a day extra of which most came from 145g extra protein. Over the 8 week period "there were no significant changes over time or between groups for body weight, fat mass, fat free mass, or percent body fat".
"Significant" here means statistically significant - there was for example a small decrease of 0.2kg in the average fat mass (BodPod) of the HP group, but with +/- 2.2 kg standard deviation this could have been entirely by chance. Similarly the average weight of both groups increased - by 0.8 and 1.7kg for CON and HP resp but the SD is bigger than either change. Never combine men and women in studies of this type, it screws the stats up.
So 800 calories/day * 8 weeks should have resulted in 12.8 lbs (5.8 kg) of weight gain in the HP group but this simply failed to turn up. Discuss.
0
Replies
-
tagging for later0
-
Intake was self-reported. The high protein group likely ate less due to the satiety factor.
Overall, a garbage study.0 -
Yeah, unless all their food was provided to them and any uneaten food weighed/analyzed, we have no way of knowing what the intake really was.0
-
Interesting - would be good to see if any other studies have recreated this!0
-
All arguments of a poor study aside...
The OP asked simply why the participants didn't gain an average of 12.8 pounds based on the theory of calories in/calories out.
They gained an average of 1.8 to 3.7 pounds.
Here is a simplistic answer: it's not as simple as calories in/calories out, whether it's weight gain or weight loss.0 -
All arguments of a poor study aside...
The OP asked simply why the participants didn't gain an average of 12.8 pounds based on the theory of calories in/calories out.
They gained an average of 1.8 to 3.7 pounds.
Here is a simplistic answer: it's not as simple as calories in/calories out, whether it's weight gain or weight loss.
You can't just ignore how a study was conducted when evaluating it. That's one of the most important questions to be asked when reviewing results, and it's why scientists have to include details of their methods and discuss any potential confounding factors or other weaknesses/conflicts when writing up their report. Self-reporting is notorious for inaccuracy.0 -
All arguments of a poor study aside...
The OP asked simply why the participants didn't gain an average of 12.8 pounds based on the theory of calories in/calories out.
They gained an average of 1.8 to 3.7 pounds.
Here is a simplistic answer: it's not as simple as calories in/calories out, whether it's weight gain or weight loss.
It IS as simple as calories in vs calories out - the law of thermodynamics is indeed that, a law. However, the issue is the oversimplicity of measuring weight gain or weight loss. Too many individuals believe the simplistic view that if you eat 3,500 calories over/under maintenance you gain/lose a lb. What isn't accounted for is increases in metabolism from increased food intake. Thermic Effect of Food (TEF) may only result in 10% increase in metabolism, and that isn't significant. What IS significant, and often overlooked, is the effect that increased calories have on movement and exertion. If I eat more, I have more energy. If I have more energy, I probably will move more. If I move more, I probably will burn more calories (increased metablolism)... So I may have to actually eat 4,500 calories or more over maintenance to truly gain a lb.
The study is flawed because it is self reported. Caloric and macro intake wasn't done in a controlled setting. Weight training wasn't performed in a controlled setting. Daily activity wasn't monitored (did the subjects move more than normal?)
The fact is the subjects did gain weight.0 -
All arguments of a poor study aside...
The OP asked simply why the participants didn't gain an average of 12.8 pounds based on the theory of calories in/calories out.
They gained an average of 1.8 to 3.7 pounds.
Here is a simplistic answer: it's not as simple as calories in/calories out, whether it's weight gain or weight loss.
It IS as simple as calories in vs calories out - the law of thermodynamics is indeed that, a law. However, the issue is the oversimplicity of measuring weight gain or weight loss. Too many individuals believe the simplistic view that if you eat 3,500 calories over/under maintenance you gain/lose a lb. What isn't accounted for is increases in metabolism from increased food intake. Thermic Effect of Food (TEF) may only result in 10% increase in metabolism, and that isn't significant. What IS significant, and often overlooked, is the effect that increased calories have on movement and exertion. If I eat more, I have more energy. If I have more energy, I probably will move more. If I move more, I probably will burn more calories (increased metablolism)... So I may have to actually eat 4,500 calories or more over maintenance to truly gain a lb.
The study is flawed because it is self reported. Caloric and macro intake wasn't done in a controlled setting. Weight training wasn't performed in a controlled setting. Daily activity wasn't monitored (did the subjects move more than normal?)
The fact is the subjects did gain weight.
Fantastic summary.
Weight training, cardio, calories, hormones, food sources, supplements, medication, stress, sleep... it ALL contributes to the overall result (e.g. a person's health, body composition, weight, etc.) Each element influences the others, and rarely can one factor be pinpointed in terms of results...
...especially if the study is not double-blind, controlled, and peer-reviewed.0 -
I didn't say the study wasn't flawed, it absolutely is, as most nutritional studies are hard to perform.
Self reporting is almost always inaccurate, I get that. It is also due to all of the variables below, and probably many more that are not even listed.
I don't believe in the simplicity of the CICO theory, but that is my thing. I do know it's one part of the equation.0 -
I didn't say the study wasn't flawed, it absolutely is, as most nutritional studies are hard to perform.
Self reporting is almost always inaccurate, I get that. It is also due to all of the variables below, and probably many more that are not even listed.
I don't believe in the simplicity of the CICO theory, but that is my thing. I do know it's one part of the equation.
] 0 -
I didn't say the study wasn't flawed, it absolutely is, as most nutritional studies are hard to perform.
Self reporting is almost always inaccurate, I get that. It is also due to all of the variables below, and probably many more that are not even listed.
I don't believe in the simplicity of the CICO theory, but that is my thing. I do know it's one part of the equation.]
Thanks for sarcasm. I am a scientist myself.0 -
All arguments of a poor study aside...
The OP asked simply why the participants didn't gain an average of 12.8 pounds based on the theory of calories in/calories out.
They gained an average of 1.8 to 3.7 pounds.
Here is a simplistic answer: it's not as simple as calories in/calories out, whether it's weight gain or weight loss.
It IS as simple as calories in vs calories out - the law of thermodynamics is indeed that, a law. However, the issue is the oversimplicity of measuring weight gain or weight loss. Too many individuals believe the simplistic view that if you eat 3,500 calories over/under maintenance you gain/lose a lb. What isn't accounted for is increases in metabolism from increased food intake. Thermic Effect of Food (TEF) may only result in 10% increase in metabolism, and that isn't significant. What IS significant, and often overlooked, is the effect that increased calories have on movement and exertion. If I eat more, I have more energy. If I have more energy, I probably will move more. If I move more, I probably will burn more calories (increased metablolism)... So I may have to actually eat 4,500 calories or more over maintenance to truly gain a lb.
The study is flawed because it is self reported. Caloric and macro intake wasn't done in a controlled setting. Weight training wasn't performed in a controlled setting. Daily activity wasn't monitored (did the subjects move more than normal?)
The fact is the subjects did gain weight.
This dude just styled all over this thread. Game, set, match.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions