Maybe CICO isn't the whole story

"This is the first interventional study to demonstrate that consuming a hypercaloric high protein diet does not result in an increase in body fat."

Some energy measurements would have been nice, or even a nitrogen balance.

Self reporting food intake and no mention of a food scale. And hopefully no one used garlic in their recipes since they logged via mfp.

jacklifts wrote: »

yarwell wrote: »

"This is the first interventional study to demonstrate that consuming a hypercaloric high protein diet does not result in an increase in body fat."

Some energy measurements would have been nice, or even a nitrogen balance.

sure

stevencloser wrote: »

How'd they ensure the study parameters were adhered to by participants?
As always, energy can't vanish. If if didn't stay in the body to become lean mass or fat, it had to come out one way or another.

more poop?

auddii wrote: »

Self reporting food intake and no mention of a food scale. And hopefully no one used garlic in their recipes since they logged via mfp.

I think many of these studies have to assume adherence. From what I've read, ward studies are prohibitively expensive. Otherwise, very few studies could be performed if all you could do was ward studies.

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Terrible study. Not only self reported but 25% drop out rate. Bodpod measurements as reference, no energy measurements. MFP as the logging tool, really?

what's wrong with bod pod if consistently used?
what's wrong with MFP if used correctly?
that dropout rate is pretty high.

here's some other stuff by the same authors. comments?
http://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-016-0114-2
http://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-015-0100-0

Bodpod is a very inconsistent measuring tool. Intra-user errors are above 10% in the literature. Not a reference tool.

MFP database is all over the place (lots of item errors) and my trust on how people use is ... well, if I randomly choose 10 diaries, a bunch of them are off. Nothing in the study methodology suggests that a quality control was
performed to assure correctness.

The crossover study is a bit better - crossover, little drop out, double method of test for body comp (still issues there). However - only 3 measurements of blood parameters over 3 months? Not impressed.

as the authors note:
"Limitations of this study include the use of dietary self-reports. It has been posited that underreporting of dietary intake is a severe confounding variable in studies that involve a dietary intervention. Interestingly, this is not a universal finding."

and even more significant:

"Certainly, the small sample size (i.e., the study was underpowered) is likely the reason for the lack of statistical significance regarding fat mass. Nevertheless, the intriguing finding in the current study is that overfeeding on protein does not typically have an adverse effect on body composition."

Well, except for the two individuals in the study where it did.
So yeah, these studies are really weak.

Individual fat mass changes from the first study


The crossover study should be more reliable in that the same people would have to behave radically differently on one diet to the other in order for +400 kcal/day * 8 weeks to not show up on the scales :



Where's the gold standard study that demonstrates a different result ?

jacklifts wrote: »

Thanks for your perspective. I guess the question I'd like to answer is:

If I am satisfied with my current caloric intake for weight loss, would I reap any additional benefits to body mass composition while maintaining my rate of weight loss by adding let's say 2 protein shakes a day to my diet, increasing my calorie count through extra protein?

Or would the increase in total calories decrease my weight loss rate (CICO)? Or would there be no difference?

I would expect your rate of loss to decrease. You could always try it and report back in 6 months.

jacklifts wrote: »

Thanks for your perspective. I guess the question I'd like to answer is:

If I am satisfied with my current caloric intake for weight loss, would I reap any additional benefits to body mass composition while maintaining my rate of weight loss by adding let's say 2 protein shakes a day to my diet, increasing my calorie count through extra protein?

Or would the increase in total calories decrease my weight loss rate (CICO)? Or would there be no difference?

If you replace current calories with a higher protein calorie percent part of the calories eaten will go to a higher TEF (small amount) creating a small further deficit.

If you add 2 shakes (at about 120 cals for 30g protein, water only) that's about 150-200 cals more available energy (assuming TEF) so that would decrease your weight loss slightly. Maybe. However, protein also has a protective role in muscle conservation and fueling recovery. So it depends on factors like training.

The answer would be ... it depends on a) protein per kg bodyweight b) how hard you are training.

If body composition is a concern - train hard, make sure you get at least 0.8 - 1.2 g/kg bw of protein. (Personally I find it hard to reach those goals without supplementation.)

auddii wrote: »

Self reporting food intake and no mention of a food scale. And hopefully no one used garlic in their recipes since they logged via mfp.

Heh! Garlic is one of the things I never bother logging (whenever those threads come up asking about what you don't log), and clearly this was a wise choice (or else I've been grossly underestimating my calories). ;-)

Okay, back to the discussion, don't mind me!

stevencloser wrote: »

I only skimmed it but this might be one. In-patient study, long term over almost 2 months, 3 groups, low protein, normal and high. All gained weight over the time period. Higher protein did increase EE though.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/01/14/ajcn.114.091769.full.pdf+html

Ah yes, Bray. I could never get my head round the way the macro intakes were all over the place :



It looks like a rework of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22215165 / http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1103993

which led me to write at the time -

Conclusions.

1. Additional calories did not turn into additional body mass at a uniform rate equivalent to 3500 calories per pound and mass was not gained at 1 pound per week per 500 calories/day difference in all groups.
2. Composition of diet counts - the low protein diet gave significantly different body composition and energy expenditure outcomes despite the same level of additional calories.
3. Despite the well controlled and measured nature of the study there are significant unaccounted calorie losses / gains when comparing the energy balance with fat and lean mass gains.
4. Only 2/3 of the additional calorie intake appears as stored fat or fat free body mass.
5. Average daily fat accumulation was approximately the same across the groups, despite significant variations in the fat content of the diets, with the LP group eating 70% more fat than HP.